"Games are a luxury item." So?

[Yopaz]

Games are not overpriced. Never have been and never will be.

Game are over funded, which leads abusive business practices and shanking the customer's wallet.

Back when I was a young lad I got the full game for 60 bucks. I wasn't told I could pay 60 bucks and wait two months for more content on the disc and give more money.
I wasn't told that my sixty bucks was only buying half the game.

NOBODY, would give a fuck if Mass Effect were built on the same graphics of KOTOR. Nobody. It would still be just as amazing a game. But these days games are costing hundreds of millions of dollars to make and the best we can hope for from that money is six hours of game play and pretty pretty graphics, and told that we need to pay more than 60 dollars to unlock the full game because the dev's and producers are too fucking greedy.

Games are not to expensive to purchase, they are too expensive to make.

May I ask when you were a young lad? Because when I was a young lad you got the full game for $40, and that was on day one; back then, they dropped quicker and lower than they do today, with bestselling PC games frequently hitting $10 a few years after launch[footnote]Console games bottomed out at $15 to $20, theoretically thanks to licensing fees.[/footnote]. The only game I remember costing $60 prior to the current gen was the PS1 remake of the first two Lunar games, which were $60 each but were really impressive editions with books, soundtrack CDs, and toys packed in; the equivalent of today's $200 special editions.

By the way, the average cost to make a AAA game is something like $30 million. That sounds like a lot, but your average blockbuster movie is more like $100 million, and those make a profit with a much smaller cost to the end user. The only real factor in the cost of games is what consumers are willing to pay; the publishers were able to give a justification for arbitrarily jacking up the already arbitrary price by $10, so they now cost $60. There's nothing else to the cost, it's completely arbitrary.

OK, never, ever compare games and movies if you want to make it sound like you know something about the economy around games and movies. You know what games never get that movies do get?

Deals with network companies to get the right to show it on TV. Million dollar deals. Several of them. There are groups who pay several millions for one movie. SSeveral TV channels pay for this, DVD sales is just a small portion of it. I doubt there is anyone who has ever had to pay that much in order to play a video game.

 

[Toby Kitching]

This is capitalism. The only responsibility of consumers is to get the best product for the least money. The only responsibility of producers is to give the least product for the most money. We're supposed to meet somewhere in the middle, but the reality is that the producers have most of the power, and we often don't. That's why the business model you mentioned is illegal in some countries; it's exploitative of the consumer, unfairly so. If, however, they were to make it free to play but keep everything else the same, they'd still have a license to print money without screwing anyone over because, you know, there's no implied ownership there. You may not know this, but EULAs tacked on after purchase are BS, and most countries aside from the US recognize this.

Firstly, I'm in two minds about EULAs. on the one hand, it pisses me off when people complain about a EULA being restrictive and then subsequently agree to and break it. agree to something if you agree. otherwise, bugger off. On the other hand, i was angry as hell with the initial EULA for origin. I actually wrote an inadvertantly sweary email to EA about it, and i can see why the whole 'no class action lawsuits' thing worries people. For reference, I actually live in the UK. AFAIK, EULAs have been held up in law courts and are considered binding, but I am totally open to being corrected on that.

Back to the topic in hand. You are saying that it is the responsibility of consumers to get the best for the least. that's true, but it only holds up when consumers remain within legal bounds. otherwise what you have is anarchy. By that logic, it is my responsibility as a capitalist to at least try to steal my shopping rather than paying for it.

Complaining about producers having power is stupid. the market value is not set by some shadowy cabal of people desperately trying to prevent people from playing video games; it's set by a combination of production overheads and what people are willing to pay. stealing is not the way to respond to feeling screwed over. I hate this phrase, but you have to vote with your wallet in this scenario. if you cant afford something of this nature, you are NOT entitled to have it anyway. in no way is this how the world works. you just have to accept that you cant get the release the VERY SECOND it comes out, do a bit of shopping around, buy second hand or give it a year or so for the price to come down. hell, there are a lot of good games that are being sold for nothing at all years after release. there are steam sales, and seasonal 'fire sales' in game stores. there are no excuses for piracy beyond a petty sense of entitlement.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

This is capitalism. The only responsibility of consumers is to get the best product for the least money. The only responsibility of producers is to give the least product for the most money. We're supposed to meet somewhere in the middle, but the reality is that the producers have most of the power, and we often don't. That's why the business model you mentioned is illegal in some countries; it's exploitative of the consumer, unfairly so. If, however, they were to make it free to play but keep everything else the same, they'd still have a license to print money without screwing anyone over because, you know, there's no implied ownership there. You may not know this, but EULAs tacked on after purchase are BS, and most countries aside from the US recognize this.

Firstly, I'm in two minds about EULAs. on the one hand, it pisses me off when people complain about a EULA being restrictive and then subsequently agree to and break it. agree to something if you agree. otherwise, bugger off. On the other hand, i was angry as hell with the initial EULA for origin. I actually wrote an inadvertantly sweary email to EA about it, and i can see why the whole 'no class action lawsuits' thing worries people. For reference, I actually live in the UK. AFAIK, EULAs have been held up in law courts and are considered binding, but I am totally open to being corrected on that.

Back to the topic in hand. You are saying that it is the responsibility of consumers to get the best for the least. that's true, but it only holds up when consumers remain within legal bounds. otherwise what you have is anarchy. By that logic, it is my responsibility as a capitalist to at least try to steal my shopping rather than paying for it.

Complaining about producers having power is stupid. the market value is not set by some shadowy cabal of people desperately trying to prevent people from playing video games; it's set by a combination of production overheads and what people are willing to pay. stealing is not the way to respond to feeling screwed over. I hate this phrase, but you have to vote with your wallet in this scenario. if you cant afford something of this nature, you are NOT entitled to have it anyway. in no way is this how the world works. you just have to accept that you cant get the release the VERY SECOND it comes out, do a bit of shopping around, buy second hand or give it a year or so for the price to come down. hell, there are a lot of good games that are being sold for nothing at all years after release. there are steam sales, and seasonal 'fire sales' in game stores. there are no excuses for piracy beyond a petty sense of entitlement.

Alright, I'm going to say this again: one, it's not theft. Two, the legality doesn't play into it; legal or not, piracy is here to stay, and the publishers are stuck competing with it. Capitalism is nothing if not economic anarchy.

As for EULA's, they're additional terms added on after the contract of sale has already been completed. In most countries, they are completely meaningless; only in the US do they have any teeth. Elsewhere, they're recognized as the unconscionable contracts of adhesion they are.

Games are not overpriced. Never have been and never will be.

Game are over funded, which leads abusive business practices and shanking the customer's wallet.

Back when I was a young lad I got the full game for 60 bucks. I wasn't told I could pay 60 bucks and wait two months for more content on the disc and give more money.
I wasn't told that my sixty bucks was only buying half the game.

NOBODY, would give a fuck if Mass Effect were built on the same graphics of KOTOR. Nobody. It would still be just as amazing a game. But these days games are costing hundreds of millions of dollars to make and the best we can hope for from that money is six hours of game play and pretty pretty graphics, and told that we need to pay more than 60 dollars to unlock the full game because the dev's and producers are too fucking greedy.

Games are not to expensive to purchase, they are too expensive to make.

May I ask when you were a young lad? Because when I was a young lad you got the full game for $40, and that was on day one; back then, they dropped quicker and lower than they do today, with bestselling PC games frequently hitting $10 a few years after launch[footnote]Console games bottomed out at $15 to $20, theoretically thanks to licensing fees.[/footnote]. The only game I remember costing $60 prior to the current gen was the PS1 remake of the first two Lunar games, which were $60 each but were really impressive editions with books, soundtrack CDs, and toys packed in; the equivalent of today's $200 special editions.

By the way, the average cost to make a AAA game is something like $30 million. That sounds like a lot, but your average blockbuster movie is more like $100 million, and those make a profit with a much smaller cost to the end user. The only real factor in the cost of games is what consumers are willing to pay; the publishers were able to give a justification for arbitrarily jacking up the already arbitrary price by $10, so they now cost $60. There's nothing else to the cost, it's completely arbitrary.

OK, never, ever compare games and movies if you want to make it sound like you know something about the economy around games and movies. You know what games never get that movies do get?

Deals with network companies to get the right to show it on TV. Million dollar deals. Several of them. There are groups who pay several millions for one movie. SSeveral TV channels pay for this, DVD sales is just a small portion of it. I doubt there is anyone who has ever had to pay that much in order to play a video game.

Those aren't the main source of revenue for movies and you know it. Movies make their money back on ticket sales and, if they're unlucky, DVD sales. The rest of it is just gravy, the way a port of an older game to a newer system is. Or do you not consider the umpteen ports of Chrono Trigger and the first few Final Fantasy games to be an additional revenue stream, completely on top of the money they made the first time around?

 

[willsham45]

Basically I think this is the problem you can go out and buy GTA or Elder Scrolls and have hours of game-play at your finger tips for £30-£40 which is great value for money and then you can go out and spend that exact same price for duke nukum and get less gameplay with a lot less polish.
But all this only applies to NEW games.
If you can wait before you know it that £40 game will soon go for £20 or £15 either though the game being second hand or being replaced by newer stock. By that point you will probably have heard more about the game and should know if it is worth while or not.

 

[Yopaz]

Those aren't the main source of revenue for movies and you know it. Movies make their money back on ticket sales and, if they're unlucky, DVD sales. The rest of it is just gravy, the way a port of an older game to a newer system is. Or do you not consider the umpteen ports of Chrono Trigger and the first few Final Fantasy games to be an additional revenue stream, completely on top of the money they made the first time around?

OK, so you know that their main source of income isn't from DVD sales yet you still compare expenses and prices with video games? Really? I don't see anything more to say. Not all companies make ports. My point was that games don't get the deals that movies get. All their money comes from sales. They port the game? Well, they still need to sell the game in order to make money. Was there a point you were trying to make or something?

 

[ablac]

Luxuries can be over-priced and anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot. I think what people mean when they complain is that the game either isnt worth that amount of money or it is priced to exploit the consumers, such as activision trying to bump up the price of call of duty games because it can get away with it, ironically they arent worth the £40 they are sold at so they're at fault twice over. With the piracy thing its pretty simple. You dont need games, they are entertainment and thus not necessary to survival, therefore you cannot justify taking them in the same way you could justify stealing food to feed yourself/family. Although the piracy debate is so destitute it isnt worth thinking about.

 

[Toby Kitching]

Alright, I'm going to say this again: one, it's not theft. Two, the legality doesn't play into it; legal or not, piracy is here to stay, and the publishers are stuck competing with it. Capitalism is nothing if not economic anarchy.

As for EULA's, they're additional terms added on after the contract of sale has already been completed. In most countries, they are completely meaningless; only in the US do they have any teeth. Elsewhere, they're recognized as the unconscionable contracts of adhesion they are

you know what, this is bloody pointless. you are part of the problem here. one of millions of gamers saying 'we can't 100% eliminate piracy, so we might as well just give up completely'. i dont understand how people can complain in one breath that huge budgets are requiring enormous profits and strangling creativity, and then happily endorse piracy if you dont feel like paying. this is hypocrisy on a massive scale. I suspect that you yourself have often pirated titles and have now completely justified it to yourself and wont accept any kind of criticism around the subject (just going on the arguments you've put forward here). Piracy may not be theft (playing to the letter of the law rather than the spirit) but that doesn't make it okay in any sense. pirates are fucking up gaming on a major scale, and the sooner the lot of them are either legitimate consumers or fined out of an internet connection, the better for the wider community. if game developers have to take drastic action AGAINST people who feel with some nebulous definition that they somehow deserve a copy of the latest game for free, then i support that.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Those aren't the main source of revenue for movies and you know it. Movies make their money back on ticket sales and, if they're unlucky, DVD sales. The rest of it is just gravy, the way a port of an older game to a newer system is. Or do you not consider the umpteen ports of Chrono Trigger and the first few Final Fantasy games to be an additional revenue stream, completely on top of the money they made the first time around?

OK, so you know that their main source of income isn't from DVD sales yet you still compare expenses and prices with video games? Really? I don't see anything more to say. Not all companies make ports. My point was that games don't get the deals that movies get. All their money comes from sales. They port the game? Well, they still need to sell the game in order to make money. Was there a point you were trying to make or something?

I compare it with DVDs because it's a more comparable product to videogames and also a more favorable price comparison. If you really want to go there, I could be saying that videogames should be $11 each (the cost of a 3D movie ticket.)

 

[ablac]

But that "games are a luxory" is a failed argument, it's basically a "first world problems" fallacy, that ignores all the piracy arguments pro and contra, and relies the idea that we shouldn't even question the current system, as long as it's not a matter of life and death.

It's pretty much like "why do you even care about the legal status of fetuses, when there are children starving in Africa?" or "Why are you so concened about american intenet censorship, when North Korea is killing people for their speech?

No, we don't NEED games. But that doesn't inherently silence every argument about improving the current, imperfect system of content distribution.

That you want to improve the world around you is admirable.

However at some point a complaint isn't valid any more. Case and point http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwwWqRV2RsI

When people say "Games are to expensive", I am going to show them a myriad of nearly free games. That just isn't the games they want. They want the ones that a expensive, and they are in return expensive because they want them.

Its not that you want a bag. You want a Prada bag.

I specifically addressed the piracy side of the argument, only. The whole "games are too expensive" complaint would only work if we would assume that games need to be sold for a fixed price of every copy in the first place.

We have entire media industries, that based around methods that let everyone experience any content for $0, and gather revenues other ways, from a fragment of the users. And we have even more theories that could be used to build similar ones.

It's not like wanting a Prada bag, it's like having the technology of giving any kind of bag to anyone for free, while still being able to financially support the designers of even more bags, but refusing to use this technology, just because that way, poor people could have luxory bags that they "don't deserve".

Financially they dont deserve it, however you know that we dont mean they dont deserve it in other ways. what we mean when we say it is simply that they cant afford it and so have no right to have it, it isnt a comment on their worth or status just the best way of putting things. Yes we can duplicate code an infinite number of times and that is fantastic, however if you adress the issue more practically you realise it will harm the industry. To go along with your analogy, imagine if everyone could have any bag they wanted and they could just take them from a guy who will give them away for free, he has some ads around him which make him money from his visitors viewing them. One problem. He didnt make the bags and the people who did arent getting paid. Why should they continue, how can they continue? They put time and effort, and a lot of cash, into making those bags. Now people are not paying for them. I dont understand what you mean when you say 'It's not like wanting a Prada bag, it's like having the technology of giving any kind of bag to anyone for free, while still being able to financially support the designers of even more bags' as surely they would be paid from the cash made from selling the bags, where does this miraculous money come from if not there?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Also, games aren't getting cheaper but actually more expensive e.g.: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/05/05/max-payne-3-and-the-rise-of-the-90-video-game/

You forgot DLC, and not only do swallow it, but they even defend the practices and publishers that are doing it now...

Here is a cliping from a magazine from the early ninety (note, these are US prices).

Spoiler: games prices in the 90's

Call back when you have a clipping from a Walmart circular from the time. The prices in the magazine ads tended to be higher than what people actually paid at the time; stores weren't always so strict about following MSRP.

Alright, I'm going to say this again: one, it's not theft. Two, the legality doesn't play into it; legal or not, piracy is here to stay, and the publishers are stuck competing with it. Capitalism is nothing if not economic anarchy.

As for EULA's, they're additional terms added on after the contract of sale has already been completed. In most countries, they are completely meaningless; only in the US do they have any teeth. Elsewhere, they're recognized as the unconscionable contracts of adhesion they are

you know what, this is bloody pointless. you are part of the problem here. one of millions of gamers saying 'we can't 100% eliminate piracy, so we might as well just give up completely'. i dont understand how people can complain in one breath that huge budgets are requiring enormous profits and strangling creativity, and then happily endorse piracy if you dont feel like paying. this is hypocrisy on a massive scale. I suspect that you yourself have often pirated titles and have now completely justified it to yourself and wont accept any kind of criticism around the subject (just going on the arguments you've put forward here). Piracy may not be theft (playing to the letter of the law rather than the spirit) but that doesn't make it okay in any sense. pirates are fucking up gaming on a major scale, and the sooner the lot of them are either legitimate consumers or fined out of an internet connection, the better for the wider community. if game developers have to take drastic action AGAINST people who feel with some nebulous definition that they somehow deserve a copy of the latest game for free, then i support that.

Actually, I do pay for my games. I just make sure they're either on sale or used -- the latter of which the publishers have been fighting for some time now. The thing about the piracy "debate" is that it's nothing but grandstanding from publishing executives, aimed at the shareholders so they can prove they're doing what they can to increase profits. This is currently taking the form of combatting the used market using piracy as a smokescreen. Think about how Valve does things; they focus on delivering a better service than the pirates, and they make boatloads of money from it. Other publishers focus on fighting a losing battle to make the shareholders happy, and it gets them nothing but angry customers.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Also, games aren't getting cheaper but actually more expensive e.g.: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/05/05/max-payne-3-and-the-rise-of-the-90-video-game/

You forgot DLC, and not only do swallow it, but they even defend the practices and publishers that are doing it now...

Here is a cliping from a magazine from the early ninety (note, these are US prices).

Spoiler: games prices in the 90's

Call back when you have a clipping from a Walmart circular from the time. The prices in the magazine ads tended to be higher than what people actually paid at the time; stores weren't always so strict about following MSRP.

That is from the Sears Catalog.

Sears also overcharged. I know it's my word against your hard evidence here, but I never knew anyone in the 90's who actually bought games at Sears, specifically because they were expensive. It was more used games, bargain bins, and Walmart.

 

[Scow2]

I'm going to jump into this argument again.

If you can't afford a game, you are NOT entitled to it. It could be that I'm involved in art circles myself, but the "Piracy doesn't hurt sales" argument is complete bullshit, as is the argument that "Artwork should be shared freely". You don't value what you don't pay for.

Not all artists mind the free distribution of their work. Feel free to spread that around freely. Others do, and their desire to control and protect the distribution of their work should be respected. Sure, an artist could financially benfit from low-cost distribution, but they'd rather not make that money if the cost is in the actual value and reputation of the game.

 

[Yopaz]

Those aren't the main source of revenue for movies and you know it. Movies make their money back on ticket sales and, if they're unlucky, DVD sales. The rest of it is just gravy, the way a port of an older game to a newer system is. Or do you not consider the umpteen ports of Chrono Trigger and the first few Final Fantasy games to be an additional revenue stream, completely on top of the money they made the first time around?

OK, so you know that their main source of income isn't from DVD sales yet you still compare expenses and prices with video games? Really? I don't see anything more to say. Not all companies make ports. My point was that games don't get the deals that movies get. All their money comes from sales. They port the game? Well, they still need to sell the game in order to make money. Was there a point you were trying to make or something?

I compare it with DVDs because it's a more comparable product to videogames and also a more favorable price comparison. If you really want to go there, I could be saying that videogames should be $11 each (the cost of a 3D movie ticket.)

Yeah, but there's a massive difference there. When you pay for the movie ticket you only get to watch the movie once. That's usually not more than 2 hours and it only takes one copy. So huge difference. You buy a video game when you pay for the movie ticket you pay for a service.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Those aren't the main source of revenue for movies and you know it. Movies make their money back on ticket sales and, if they're unlucky, DVD sales. The rest of it is just gravy, the way a port of an older game to a newer system is. Or do you not consider the umpteen ports of Chrono Trigger and the first few Final Fantasy games to be an additional revenue stream, completely on top of the money they made the first time around?

OK, so you know that their main source of income isn't from DVD sales yet you still compare expenses and prices with video games? Really? I don't see anything more to say. Not all companies make ports. My point was that games don't get the deals that movies get. All their money comes from sales. They port the game? Well, they still need to sell the game in order to make money. Was there a point you were trying to make or something?

I compare it with DVDs because it's a more comparable product to videogames and also a more favorable price comparison. If you really want to go there, I could be saying that videogames should be $11 each (the cost of a 3D movie ticket.)

Yeah, but there's a massive difference there. When you pay for the movie ticket you only get to watch the movie once. That's usually not more than 2 hours and it only takes one copy. So huge difference. You buy a video game when you pay for the movie ticket you pay for a service.

Yet the studios still make a profit at that price, with a relatively small number of people buying a ticket more than once; the vast majority of people only see a movie once in theaters and buy the DVD down the road, or alternatively skip the movie entirely and wait for it to come out on DVD so they can pay the $25 and have it forever. My point here is that movies make money hand over fist despite the fact that you can buy three tickets and a DVD for less than the cost of one videogame. Also, it's nice to see someone here admitting that you own a videogame once you buy it; the publishers like to pretend we're renting access to a service.

 

[RoBi3.0]

I think if you don't have the cash to spend $60 or so on a game, you should put more effort into getting paid and less into playing games.

I think if you do have the $60 or so to spend on a game and you don't realize why others do not, you should spend less time with the wealthy and more time with the middle class; if nothing else, it'll help you to better appreciate what you have.

Seriously, this is exactly why the attitude I'm talking about bugs me: it may not be intended this way, but it comes across as someone saying "well I can afford it. If you can't, you must be lazy, so poor you can't afford to put food on the table, or both."

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

^More information on the subject.

I'm lower-middle class, not wealthy. The difference is that I don't go blowing my paycheck on games that I can't afford to invest the time or money into.

So then you don't buy $60 games, then? I'm drawing a blank on how you can be lower middle class and still afford to pay $60 for a videogame, unless its your only hobby or something.

I do. But not very often. I don't feel a need to have to constantly stay "on top" of all the new releases, and being able to extend the life of a game from a few hours to several years greatly improves the value of a game: If I buy a game that doesn't deliver it's full value, I dig that value out of the game and make it worth it. I don't regret any of my few video game purchases.

So then the answer is that you can't afford it often and when you do buy it, it's a major purchase, correct? Because if that's the case, it's exactly my point: videogames are priced to be major purchases, despite being ultimately disposable entertainment media. They're in direct competition with DVDs, but cost as much as three DVDs or a single designer T-shirt, which really is a luxury "look at how much money I have" item.

Games aren't really a major purchase for me or anyone with a decent job and even a half-brained financial sense.

case in point if you are spending $60 for a T-shirt you are a fucking idiot or rich and if you are rich 60 bucks for hours of entertainment is pocket change.

My opinion is you have right right to ***** about game prices while simultaneously, hand the money over to buy the game whose price you are bitching about. Games cost what they do because that is what consumers are willing to pay that price. If people stopped purchasing games for 60 dollars a pop Publishers will eventually stop charging 60 dollars a game.

Also I find it very humorous that you place Games on par with DVD movies they are not playing the same sport let alone occupying the same planet. All entertainment is not created equal I would rather spend 60 dollars on one game then buy 2 or 3 movie simply because games provide a higher quality entertainment experience and usually longer durations.

Hell comparing games to movies is like comparing books to newspapers sure they both have words that I came read but I am throwing way the paper after I finish my coffee in the morning while the book is going to take a few hours to read depending on length, then I am going to put it on my bookshelves to perhaps read it again. I can't imagine why a paperback book would cost 6-7 dollars while a newspaper only cost 1 dollar I mean they are the "same". after all.

 

[gizmo2300]

Games are not necessary for your basic survival, i.e. it's a luxury item. Same as soda, candy, movies, comics, books, television, and radio. It doesn't really go further than that. You want a hobby? You pay the price. You wanna collect Warhammer Figures? You go lay down the 60 bucks for the figures. You wanna play Arkham City on your handy dandy PS3? You go lay down whatever the price is for games in your country. Arguments like "I pirate to fight anti-piracy programs" are hilarious to me, because you're fighting it by making the problem worse. It's really not simpler, these things take cash to develop, i.e. by buying video games you're funding the survival of your hobby.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I think if you don't have the cash to spend $60 or so on a game, you should put more effort into getting paid and less into playing games.

I think if you do have the $60 or so to spend on a game and you don't realize why others do not, you should spend less time with the wealthy and more time with the middle class; if nothing else, it'll help you to better appreciate what you have.

Seriously, this is exactly why the attitude I'm talking about bugs me: it may not be intended this way, but it comes across as someone saying "well I can afford it. If you can't, you must be lazy, so poor you can't afford to put food on the table, or both."

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

^More information on the subject.

I'm lower-middle class, not wealthy. The difference is that I don't go blowing my paycheck on games that I can't afford to invest the time or money into.

So then you don't buy $60 games, then? I'm drawing a blank on how you can be lower middle class and still afford to pay $60 for a videogame, unless its your only hobby or something.

I do. But not very often. I don't feel a need to have to constantly stay "on top" of all the new releases, and being able to extend the life of a game from a few hours to several years greatly improves the value of a game: If I buy a game that doesn't deliver it's full value, I dig that value out of the game and make it worth it. I don't regret any of my few video game purchases.

So then the answer is that you can't afford it often and when you do buy it, it's a major purchase, correct? Because if that's the case, it's exactly my point: videogames are priced to be major purchases, despite being ultimately disposable entertainment media. They're in direct competition with DVDs, but cost as much as three DVDs or a single designer T-shirt, which really is a luxury "look at how much money I have" item.

Games aren't really a major purchase for me or anyone with a decent job and even a half-brained financial sense.

case in point if you are spending $60 for a T-shirt you are a fucking idiot or rich and if you are rich 60 bucks for hours of entertainment is pocket change.

My opinion is you have right right to ***** about game prices while simultaneously, hand the money over to buy the game whose price you are bitching about. Games cost what they do because that is what consumers are willing to pay that price. If people stopped purchasing games for 60 dollars a pop Publishers will eventually stop charging 60 dollars a game.

Also I find it very humorous that you place Games on par with DVD movies they are not playing the same sport let alone occupying the same planet. All entertainment is not created equal I would rather spend 60 dollars on one game then buy 2 or 3 movie simply because games provide a higher quality entertainment experience and usually longer durations.

Hell comparing games to movies is like comparing books to newspapers sure they both have words that I came read but I am throwing way the paper after I finish my coffee in the morning while the book is going to take a few hours to read depending on length, then I am going to put it on my bookshelves to perhaps read it again. I can't imagine why a paperback book would cost 6-7 dollars while a newspaper only cost 1 dollar I mean they are the "same". after all.

The old "games take longer to finish than movies" argument, eh? Well I'll be honest. It's an extremely rare game that I get more than six hours of entertainment out of. Most games are padded to get that fabled length, and it doesn't make them more valuable so much make them frustratingly long. I'm comparing a complete entertainment product to a complete entertainment product, not going on dollars per hour, which never plays into people's justifications for the cost of a purchase except, oddly enough, when people are defending the cost of videogames. By the way, comparing a videogame to a movie is less like comparing a book to a newspaper, and more like comparing a movie to a season of a TV show. If you haven't noticed, DVD boxed sets of TV shows have come down in recent years; comparing dollars to hours, season boxed sets are often a better deal than video games these days. And even then, a lot of people would rather have a good movie than a good TV show, because the movie can be a better experience. People pay for the experience, not the amount of time spent on it.

 

[RoBi3.0]

Those aren't the main source of revenue for movies and you know it. Movies make their money back on ticket sales and, if they're unlucky, DVD sales. The rest of it is just gravy, the way a port of an older game to a newer system is. Or do you not consider the umpteen ports of Chrono Trigger and the first few Final Fantasy games to be an additional revenue stream, completely on top of the money they made the first time around?

OK, so you know that their main source of income isn't from DVD sales yet you still compare expenses and prices with video games? Really? I don't see anything more to say. Not all companies make ports. My point was that games don't get the deals that movies get. All their money comes from sales. They port the game? Well, they still need to sell the game in order to make money. Was there a point you were trying to make or something?

I compare it with DVDs because it's a more comparable product to videogames and also a more favorable price comparison. If you really want to go there, I could be saying that videogames should be $11 each (the cost of a 3D movie ticket.)

Yeah, but there's a massive difference there. When you pay for the movie ticket you only get to watch the movie once. That's usually not more than 2 hours and it only takes one copy. So huge difference. You buy a video game when you pay for the movie ticket you pay for a service.

Yet the studios still make a profit at that price, with a relatively small number of people buying a ticket more than once; the vast majority of people only see a movie once in theaters and buy the DVD down the road, or alternatively skip the movie entirely and wait for it to come out on DVD so they can pay the $25 and have it forever. My point here is that movies make money hand over fist despite the fact that you can buy three tickets and a DVD for less than the cost of one videogame. Also, it's nice to see someone here admitting that you own a videogame once you buy it; the publishers like to pretend we're renting access to a service.

/facepalm can you really not see how movies make money had over fist while charging less. Let me explain.

First the majority of the ticket prices go directly to to movie studios damn near all the ticket profits for the first few weeks the movie is out. Theaters make the majority of their profits on concession that is why the cost a bunch.

Now a ticket cost roughly 10 dollars or more depending on where you live. You buy a ticket and so does a hundred or so other people and they all watch the movie at the same time you do. A decent movie makes the money it took to make it the first week or so it is in the theaters (I am being nice it should make its money back sooner then that) Once the movie goes to DVD the it takes to buy them is pure profit for the studios if the movie was even half good.

In short the distribution path for movies is drastically different then video games. I would you be willing to pay 10 dollars for the right to play a game 2 hour at a time with 100 other people for the first few months it was out while not actually owning it. Then wait a month or more after it is made unavailable to the public so that when it is put on a disk so you can less for it when you finial get a chance to take it home?

As I have said before it does make a lick of sense to compare games to movies.

 

[Yopaz]

Those aren't the main source of revenue for movies and you know it. Movies make their money back on ticket sales and, if they're unlucky, DVD sales. The rest of it is just gravy, the way a port of an older game to a newer system is. Or do you not consider the umpteen ports of Chrono Trigger and the first few Final Fantasy games to be an additional revenue stream, completely on top of the money they made the first time around?

OK, so you know that their main source of income isn't from DVD sales yet you still compare expenses and prices with video games? Really? I don't see anything more to say. Not all companies make ports. My point was that games don't get the deals that movies get. All their money comes from sales. They port the game? Well, they still need to sell the game in order to make money. Was there a point you were trying to make or something?

I compare it with DVDs because it's a more comparable product to videogames and also a more favorable price comparison. If you really want to go there, I could be saying that videogames should be $11 each (the cost of a 3D movie ticket.)

Yeah, but there's a massive difference there. When you pay for the movie ticket you only get to watch the movie once. That's usually not more than 2 hours and it only takes one copy. So huge difference. You buy a video game when you pay for the movie ticket you pay for a service.

Yet the studios still make a profit at that price, with a relatively small number of people buying a ticket more than once; the vast majority of people only see a movie once in theaters and buy the DVD down the road, or alternatively skip the movie entirely and wait for it to come out on DVD so they can pay the $25 and have it forever. My point here is that movies make money hand over fist despite the fact that you can buy three tickets and a DVD for less than the cost of one videogame. Also, it's nice to see someone here admitting that you own a videogame once you buy it; the publishers like to pretend we're renting access to a service.

You know I don't completely agree with you, but you make some valid points when I put my mind into your way of thinking. Movies manage profits on 11 on tickets and 25 on DVDs, though games could probably still cost more than movies a reduction in price could most likely be good for both us and the publisher. Valve says that profits always increase when they lower prices on some crazy sale.

Also a side-note on owning games: screw what publisher say. I paid for it I say I own my copy.

 

[RoBi3.0]

I think if you don't have the cash to spend $60 or so on a game, you should put more effort into getting paid and less into playing games.

I think if you do have the $60 or so to spend on a game and you don't realize why others do not, you should spend less time with the wealthy and more time with the middle class; if nothing else, it'll help you to better appreciate what you have.

Seriously, this is exactly why the attitude I'm talking about bugs me: it may not be intended this way, but it comes across as someone saying "well I can afford it. If you can't, you must be lazy, so poor you can't afford to put food on the table, or both."

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

^More information on the subject.

I'm lower-middle class, not wealthy. The difference is that I don't go blowing my paycheck on games that I can't afford to invest the time or money into.

So then you don't buy $60 games, then? I'm drawing a blank on how you can be lower middle class and still afford to pay $60 for a videogame, unless its your only hobby or something.

I do. But not very often. I don't feel a need to have to constantly stay "on top" of all the new releases, and being able to extend the life of a game from a few hours to several years greatly improves the value of a game: If I buy a game that doesn't deliver it's full value, I dig that value out of the game and make it worth it. I don't regret any of my few video game purchases.

So then the answer is that you can't afford it often and when you do buy it, it's a major purchase, correct? Because if that's the case, it's exactly my point: videogames are priced to be major purchases, despite being ultimately disposable entertainment media. They're in direct competition with DVDs, but cost as much as three DVDs or a single designer T-shirt, which really is a luxury "look at how much money I have" item.

Games aren't really a major purchase for me or anyone with a decent job and even a half-brained financial sense.

case in point if you are spending $60 for a T-shirt you are a fucking idiot or rich and if you are rich 60 bucks for hours of entertainment is pocket change.

My opinion is you have right right to ***** about game prices while simultaneously, hand the money over to buy the game whose price you are bitching about. Games cost what they do because that is what consumers are willing to pay that price. If people stopped purchasing games for 60 dollars a pop Publishers will eventually stop charging 60 dollars a game.

Also I find it very humorous that you place Games on par with DVD movies they are not playing the same sport let alone occupying the same planet. All entertainment is not created equal I would rather spend 60 dollars on one game then buy 2 or 3 movie simply because games provide a higher quality entertainment experience and usually longer durations.

Hell comparing games to movies is like comparing books to newspapers sure they both have words that I came read but I am throwing way the paper after I finish my coffee in the morning while the book is going to take a few hours to read depending on length, then I am going to put it on my bookshelves to perhaps read it again. I can't imagine why a paperback book would cost 6-7 dollars while a newspaper only cost 1 dollar I mean they are the "same". after all.

The old "games take longer to finish than movies" argument, eh? Well I'll be honest. It's an extremely rare game that I get more than six hours of entertainment out of. Most games are padded to get that fabled length, and it doesn't make them more valuable so much make them frustratingly long. I'm comparing a complete entertainment product to a complete entertainment product, not going on dollars per hour, which never plays into people's justifications for the cost of a purchase except, oddly enough, when people are defending the cost of videogames. By the way, comparing a videogame to a movie is less like comparing a book to a newspaper, and more like comparing a movie to a season of a TV show. If you haven't noticed, DVD boxed sets of TV shows have come down in recent years; comparing dollars to hours, season boxed sets are often a better deal than video games these days. And even then, a lot of people would rather have a good movie than a good TV show, because the movie can be a better experience. People pay for the experience, not the amount of time spent on it.

Dude I see you busted out the "old games are longer argument" in an effort to make my point lass valid, rebuttal, lawlz.

I said that games provide a higher quality entertainment experience, duration is only a small part of that. Capitalism centers around finding the sweet spot were the person making and selling the item finds maximum amount to money their target market is willing to pay for what they are selling.


Edit: Further let me use some examples to further explain why movies are different then video games.

The Avenger made 207.1 million dollars opening weekend broke tons of records and did fantastic.

Skyrim made 450 million dollars the fist 2 days it was released broke tons of records and generally did fantastic.

At first look that seems like Games should be balling but you have to account for the fact that that for the next few months studios will continue to resale the same experience to individuals that wish to see it more then once and people will see it more then once. I know I am planning on seeing it again. Then the movie studios will resale the same experience to you again when you go buy the DVD.

When Skyrim is brought typically people buy the experience just once the chance to resale the experience to the same individual is practically non-existent.

So that is why movie studios make more while charging sell.