"Games are a luxury item." So?

[funcooker11811]

Christ, people are seriously trying to justify over-priced games by saying that their a luxury item, so its okay? Everything except food is a luxury item, and even then you could argue against the necessity of spices, beverages except for water, and sweets. Yet, we still have laws preventing companies from gouging their customers, because there is a cutoff line between what is and isn't an acceptable price point, no matter what the necessity of a product is. Games are too damn expensive, and its bad for everyone except the publishers and retail.

 

[Lady Larunai]

and $60 is ridiculous for a videogame. Anything can be overpriced, even luxury items -- especially luxury items -- so let's quit pretending videogames can't be overpriced just because they're not an absolute necessity for daily life.

HAHAHAHAHA....$120 for some games in Australia! $60 is a sale!

Lol I know right? I want to live somewhere where $60 is a normal price for a new game.

And I'd love to live somewhere where minimum wage is double where it is here. We've had that little argument to death. Besides, as Jim Sterling noted a couple of weeks ago, better does not mean good. We pay less than you do, but we still pay too much.

1) Move. Our unemployment rate is 4.9%

2) If you guys pay too much, and you complain about it, how are we meant to react?

I've always loved the whole Aussie minimum wage is double ours argument, that works only when things cost the same.. For most things we pay double the American standard.

Though on the note of games being cheaper in the past I have a genesis game with the cover price of $149 brand new, no collectors edition or anything.

I love the whole "Aussies pay twice as much as we do for everything" argument that only works when people earn the same. See why this doesn't work? It's a wash, $120 hurts you guys about as much as $60 does us. And there were a couple of genesis games that were up around $100 in the U.S., too. They had large ROM chips, additional processors, or both on board; cartridge based games could cost a fortune to make.

Both points cancel themselves out anyway, we earn twice as much we pay twice as much, point was neither side can really complain about the others earnings the $120 price tag for games became big here when our dollar matched the American one, as for the genesis thing I can't say much as its the only one I have with a price sticker and could very well be an American import for all I know as the all my other cartridges state megadrive

 

[Kouen]

I Judge a games value to me personally by the fun I have had with said game.

For instance Fifa Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1 (Sorry at the rate there released I get them confused ) I thought the 1st mission was awesome then yawned through the rest, but Ben There, Dan That and Time Gentlemen Please a double pack valued at much lower I had so much more fun with.

Generally games are too expensive at the moment... hell I remember when you could buy games on tapes for the ZX Spectrum +2 and Amstrad CPC 464 at £2.99 for ok stuff and £4.99 for the more AA titles... Yes I am THAT old!

Some of the excuse the industry gives is hiring bigger teams to do harder work on the titles. but me I think it would have been better if the prices was standardized so they cannot exceed a price tag without being a full featured collectors edition - and by full featured I mean more than a extra DLC but were talking resin model, art book, making of DVD ect. ect you know a real Special Edition.

I Think a boxed game, No matter the platform be it 360, PC, PS3 or Wii should not exceed $39.99 and the Collectors editions no more than $59.99

Inversely I think Downloadable versions should be valued the same, "Why Kouen?!" I hear you ask. To level it between the boxed and digital releases, Me personally with the limited space I have I cant really have many Boxed games but I would like the option and as such don?t want the boxed game to be a thing of the past, There is nothing quite like unwrapping a fresh copy of a game you have been waiting for, something digital titles will never replace and I hope it goes no where, the whole thought that the next generation consoles will remove optical drives from them troubles me on more levels than one, for instance it removes the experience I mentioned above but also really removes your ownership to some degree. People argue that?s the case with the Steam service, but however I am able to backup my games through the steam system via the Steam application and I can "un"Steam them with items from the darker side of the internet meaning I don?t loose total ownership and makes the games rather like something from GoG.Com...

Just the thoughts of your average gamer

 

[Pebblig]

I don't think they are necessarily overpriced, at £40 here on release, you can always wait that 3-4 week period were pretty much every game is dropped to £25 or £20. I bought Skyrim on release, but GAME and GAMESTATION had a £22 offer on it about a month in.

I agree with others, that I usually gauge the price of a game with the opinions of reviewers and the amount of gameplay I can get for it. I never pay full price for something that'll only get me 2-5 hours gameplay (£40).

My opinion of a good deal Skyrim £37.99 on release, 100 hours +
Mafia 2 £2 4-5 hours.
Bastion £1.70

As a rule of thumb with a game, I always hope that a game will average out to cost me between £0.50 and £1 per hour, then I feel that I have had a good deal =p

 

[jamart]

As a rule of thumb with a game, I always hope that a game will average out to cost me between £0.50 and £1 per hour, then I feel that I have had a good deal =p

Same here bro, I try and apply the 'Hours Principle' to most of my purchases. I try to get an Hour per pound spent. That, obv, uncluding replays, re-reads, relistens.

 

[samstewiefisher]

I dont think they are over priced. They are expensive, but give value for money.
I live in England where a game costs about 2 to 2 1/2 times the cost of a DVD, but games provide hours of entertainment where as a DVD gives you about 2 hours. I spent 40 pounds on Skyrim, but so far I've spent 130 odd hours on there, and am probably only about 70% through the time I will spend in total.
Then again, it depends on the title. I paid £13 for arkham assylum and felt like I was ripped off. I hated that game.

 

[Rude as HECK]

Price isn't the same as value, guys.

 

[ParkourMcGhee]

This comes up a lot in discussions about both piracy and the price of games: the argument goes that games are a luxury item, so there's absolutely no reason to complain about the price. The problem is that, first of all, games are a luxury item, but they're a luxury item of the sort that DVDs and books are, and they're priced high enough that they're more in competition with expensive wines and designer clothes, but more importantly, it is still possible to overpay for a luxury item, something that has been the source of many a joke about the nouveaux riches over the years.

You know why this is? Luxury items have price ranges the same as anything else. Just like $5 would be ridiculous for a loaf of white bread and $20 would be ridiculous for a gallon of milk, $10,000 would be ridiculous even for a high end home theater receiver, and $60 is ridiculous for a videogame. Anything can be overpriced, even luxury items -- especially luxury items -- so let's quit pretending videogames can't be overpriced just because they're not an absolute necessity for daily life.

In my opinion, games are as 'luxury' as coffee, or cigarettes, and just as addictive.

Some people may spend more money on something, but recently, I'm being more and more content to just go to the local library, and order a book if they don't have it. £1 out of my wallet as opposed to £50 for a similar amount of enjoyment, even free if they already have it.

Another bonus is I don't have to listen to people badmouth me all day if I'm reading a book as opposed to trying to play WITH someone (looking at you LoL).

Now if we could just start having libraries to loan old games, that'd be swell. I mean they're already "lost profits" the way the industry's going about it, right?

 

[Jumpingbean3]

Where the heck did you get the idea that 8-30 hours of entertainment where you are in control isn't worth $60?

I've never regretted a video-game purchase.

What if it's below 8 hours and/or is an un-entertaining miserable experience (like say, Kane and Lynch 2)?

 

[StriderShinryu]

Where the heck did you get the idea that 8-30 hours of entertainment where you are in control isn't worth $60?

I've never regretted a video-game purchase.

What if it's below 8 hours and/or is an un-entertaining miserable experience (like say, Kane and Lynch 2)?

Tastes vary from person to person. Maybe someone found Kane and Lynch 2 worth their money. And in the vast majority of cases, it's pretty easy to judge the relative quality of a game before you spend $60 (or any price) on it given all of the previews, reviews, videos, lets plays, etc. out there these days at the click of a mouse.

It's easy to pick out examples of things that aren't worth their cost to you in every single facet of the economy, luxury item or not. That's as true of videogames as it is of chocolate bars. I don't like Bounty as much as I like Snickers, but the fact that Bounty exists and I think it's a waste of otherwise good ingredients doesn't somehow mean all chocolate bars aren't worth a dollar.

 

[gizmo2300]

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/10/an-inconvenient-truth-game-prices-have-come-down-with-time/

Game prices have fortunately come down

 

[distortedreality]

Where the heck did you get the idea that 8-30 hours of entertainment where you are in control isn't worth $60?
I've never regretted a video-game purchase.

Then try playing Homefront. I finished it in under 5 hours, meaning it cost me ? 10 per hour.

If I'm paying ? 10 per hour I want a lot more than a mediocre piece of software. For the same price you can go lasergaming, do the exact shame shooting and 'battle' simulation for real with a bunch of friends.

You know the solution to that problem?

Don't buy shit games. It's really not that hard.

 

[Cheesus333]

We have to pay twice as much while fighting off 6 foot tall spiders on our way to the store.

This sentence is my favourite of all the sentences.

I'm not vastly bothered or put off by game prices. If I like a game enough to buy it at (or very near) release, then the ~£40 price tag doesn't do much to deter me. Anything else, I pick up for less than £30 at whatever point in the future, when I become interested in it.

And there's still bargains out there. I paid £23 for my pre-ordered copy of Diablo 3, and I'm very impressed by Torchlight 2's £15 price tag - hell, they even throw in the prequel!

 

[mjcabooseblu]

Have you stopped to consider that breaking a law is probably the single, least effective means of protesting the law?

words and fallacies and stuff

If you are organized, committed, and willing to give your life to change the law, and have significant support then it's a revolution. If you're willing to ***** and moan about something completely pointless, yet not dedicated enough to take real action other than ignoring the law, you're a petty criminal.

But Brink was ambitious dude, it tried so hard you have to be nice to it.

Having read this, I feel like you have made a personal attack on my intelligence. Brink wasn't just terrible, it was also unoriginal.

Anyway, if a game gives you at least 12 hours of entertainment, you've already beaten out going to a movie theatre. As long as a game can provide 12 solid hours, I feel that my money is well spent.

It was supposed to be a light hearted sarcasm, note the extremely hyperbolic "you have to be nice to it."

Thank god, I'm sick of the argument and it's gotten to the point where it's impossible to identify sarcasm on the subject from genuine support.

 

[Anarchemitis]

If you are reading this, it is evident that you live in with luxury. If I were you [and I am] I would not complain.

 

[LilithSlave]

This sort of reasoning is so idiotic.

It is wholly logical. Quite the opposite of "idiotic".

Would you like to present, for the first time in history, an argument against piracy that doesn't resort to circular logic?

I don't understand how you don't warnings for basically promoting piracy.

Ah, the rules. There's some nasty backward, morally unsound agenda promoting in there. I don't own the site, though, so they can ban whatever speech they like, no matter how silly it is. There's no point in bringing up the topic of piracy, however, if a difference of opinion may not be allowed to exist.

Don't worry though, they have taken an opportunity to warn me before for stating the fact that high piracy rates increase sales, while low piracy rates decrease sales. And conveniently ignore it much of the time when other users directly insult me.

I'd rather get on the bad side of the mods and speak the apparently unloved truth about piracy around here, than promote a lie just to get along. I'm not going to spread ignorance or even just go along with it just for the sake of being on the mods good side.

I get the idea of paying for something to compensate someone who created it is a concept that is completely beyond you, but seriously?

That's not just rude and elitist down-talking, but an assumption of the perspective and position of another.

Apologize for piracy some more, why don't you.

Use less rude sarcasm, will you. I know that mods wouldn't likely hold you to the rules of conduct when it comes to this issue. But you really shouldn't abuse that so. It's cheap.

Apologize? Is that what speaking the truth is? When people attack piracy, they're doing nothing but baseless moralizing with absolutely no backing. It's amazing that people can even pretend that piracy is immoral or any of the other negative accusations made at it.

It is not arguable to say who has what right to do with their information personally created content.

So if a person posts pictures of themselves online, and they get massively distributed, and they come to not like it. Do they have a right to prevent the spread of those pictures of themselves? And is it immoral to stop a person from spreading those pictures?

Of course it isn't arguable. They don't have that right.

Why? Well, again, as we've hashed this out before, this may be a fucking revelation for you, but it's because they created it.

Oh yes, we have, and the anti-piracy arguments aren't getting any less silly or re-hashed.

Their intention is not to distribute it, it is to sell it. Such a distinction is obviously too fucking inconvenient for you.

I doesn't matter what their intention is. They made the decision to make information available and it is not in their right to prevent the spread of said information.

According to your definition, wikileaks is piracy. And it is indeed fairly comparable. Wikileaks isn't immoral, either.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

same old shit

When your ideology is embraced by the world, I think I'll start caring then. Till then, you're just another replaceable consumer who's sadly under the impression that he/she is somehow a crusader against "the evil corporations".

Enjoy your piracy, since it is of course wholly acceptable to you.