Games are too expensive
- Thread starter Gindil
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I remember back in the PS2/XBOX/GCN era where games found the balance between cost and quality. costs ranging from 20-40 bucks a game. THOSE where the days.
Ow yeah, like some newspapers, right?Kair said:
Wait, what does newspaper do to haul in money for their EMPLOYEES?
Hmmmm... Oh yes, advertisement!
Simply, you'd rather want the games free of charge but with obnoxious commercial breaking in each 5 minutes or having the scenery filled with todays market products?
I can say with full heart that'd be the end of my gaming days.
just buy games for the old Xbox and N64, they cost a couple of pounds each and are about ten times better than most new ones!
Don't be to hard on him. He is likely still living at his parents home and doesn't understand yet that you can't get something for nothing. That just because games are "information" it still costs tens of millions of dollars to create.iLikeHippos said:
Either that or he is a hippy.
Primarily, I think they need ways of cutting down game costs. It seems obvious a lot of these things like super-advanced graphics and technologies we can't even use well are getting in the way. Maybe someday when we've worked out the best way to have a realistic physics engine, miles-wide arena, and ultra graphical effects actually work towards some gameplay mechanic, we should use them. This AAA-model of trying to get everything on the top-level just isn't working: It makes everything incredibly expensive, and usually means there are so many elements to get correct that there will be horrendous bugs everywhere.
Until then, Metal Slug is better combat than Call of Duty, so they're really better off focusing on making something fun with as little as they need.
Until then, Metal Slug is better combat than Call of Duty, so they're really better off focusing on making something fun with as little as they need.
$100 USD for any game is exorbitant beyond reason. Any Aussies could possibly comment how much a top title on Steam is? In the UK, PC games vary from £25-35 on release (£30-40 for Special/Collectors Eds.), 360 titles about £5 more, PS3 titles £5-10 more. Handheld games are between £15-25 new at release.
I personally consider ~£30 to be a good and fair price for a top, new title at release, £35-40 for Collectors Ed. and £15 for an expansion (actual expansion, not a handful of maps!). Any more than that I consider greed and would only pay it if it was a Bioware game. If our cousins down under are paying close to $100 USD for a single game, I have sympathies for how insanely you're being ripped off.
I personally consider ~£30 to be a good and fair price for a top, new title at release, £35-40 for Collectors Ed. and £15 for an expansion (actual expansion, not a handful of maps!). Any more than that I consider greed and would only pay it if it was a Bioware game. If our cousins down under are paying close to $100 USD for a single game, I have sympathies for how insanely you're being ripped off.
I wait for games to be out a few months before purchase, unless I'm willing to spend the money on a game that is practically guaranteed to be good in advance. I purchased C&C the first decade at full retail (think it was around $80 US) because I knew C&C was fun.
As a general rule when I buy games, unless I'm not COMPLETELY excited about it, I wait. The price steadily drops after the first few months, or I buy it used. I was going to purchase MW2, but held off to see what happened after the first few months. I learned it was glitchy online and the single player was incredibly short, and still haven't purchased it.
3D dot game heroes was released at 40 USD, as opposed to the standard 60. It's an incredible game, and would be worth the 60. "The discount" allows more people to purchase it, and for it to reach a larger audience. I would love to see more games at that same price point, but those who sell the game want to get more profit. You get more profit by increasing the price.
Plus, if say 40 USD becomes a standard price, in years we will complain because we will think its to high. If you think a game is to expensive, wait to buy it.
As a general rule when I buy games, unless I'm not COMPLETELY excited about it, I wait. The price steadily drops after the first few months, or I buy it used. I was going to purchase MW2, but held off to see what happened after the first few months. I learned it was glitchy online and the single player was incredibly short, and still haven't purchased it.
3D dot game heroes was released at 40 USD, as opposed to the standard 60. It's an incredible game, and would be worth the 60. "The discount" allows more people to purchase it, and for it to reach a larger audience. I would love to see more games at that same price point, but those who sell the game want to get more profit. You get more profit by increasing the price.
Plus, if say 40 USD becomes a standard price, in years we will complain because we will think its to high. If you think a game is to expensive, wait to buy it.
Wow. That's something. Defending AND mocking him on the same post. I'm impressed.Kagim said:
At the same time, I don't know if I should feel pity or laughter.
But yeah, no offense. But games do indeed require money, like a book requires paper and ink and a working writer.
I haven't bought a new game for ages. Not since Street Fighter 4. And I learnt my lesson for paying premium prices for pretty shite games. I'd rather buy it pre-owned because it works out cheaper than buying new or renting from MOST places.
NO, no, no NO.Gindil said:
Sale of games for ownership is NOT the only way that money can be made in gaming:
Subscriptions
Look at World of Warcraft. You buy the game but you PAY to get an online service.
Remember back in Novemeber 2009 Activision were bitching about Dedicated Servers being too expensive for Modern Warfare 2? Well how about they sell the game and then charge per for "tickets" or even "season passes" to access dedicated servers.
The upcoming PC game APB has a rather unique setup where you buy the game and get the first. what uh, 50 hours free? Then you pay for subsequent hours and or if you are a REALLY heavy user you pay for free passes for a given number of months.
Also, publishers have to realise that they can make up whatever numbers they like, the market will pay what it can bear. That's how capitalism works.
Sure they COULD sell each game at £90, no law is stopping them and I swear hand on heart I knew a manager of Gamestation that thought games should sell at that price... each game the same price as a console. His justification: no game should EVER make a loss, he ACTUALLY THOUGHT that every single game should break even. I said that the reason most games don't break even is those games are crap and deserve to fail.
But lets say that was done, then way fewer will be sold though that may not be a problem if the unit cost counteracts that. The problem comes as this will only increase the affect or re-selling of games.
One of the reasons the pre-owned market for games is so huge is that people cannot afford games new and when they do get them it uses up so much of their income they need to sell the game they bought to bankroll the next purchase.
Which is I think another reason why the Gamestation Manager was being selfish as greater cost of games means a much higher trade in rate, which is where they make most of their money.
One think I don't think he considers is £90 per game may even completely destroy the retail business and it goes almost 100% rental based. £90 is a just too large an investment for one person to make in one game, it only ever becomes cost effective by doing the rounds amongst dozens of different users.
I personally have huge faith in Steam's network and the pricing and special offers.
I would like to hear how much money Vince Zampella and Jason West was promised as bonus money for MW2, im sure it's on the net somewhere (it's not the amount they are suing for)
When the industry tells me that number and still continues to argue that games make 'little' money and people believe that: your guilible lapdogs for the industry.
Hell, for the amount they were promised you could make a descent or even a really good (read: expensive) game all by itself.
Games can easily knock off 5-10 euro per title and still make huge amounts of money, key is: they have to make a good game first, but corporate wants more profit/royalties. So we are flooded with repetitive boring crap for more money that plays it 'safe' and keeps the stockholders happy. Look at WoW: ever since it's evident succes we are flooded with mediocre MMO's, because investors think there is a lot of money to be made and marketshare to gain. Since all those crappy clone-like games dont sell as well as they think: prices might go up to make up for loss of income.(i know they usually get cheaper after release, but this happens usually after the results from the testgroups are in and investors get scared before the launch of a game) But once those prices are UP, they will never go down. And even games that are a 'sure thing' (like MW2) will be from now on marketed in that same new upped pricerange or at even higher prices to inflate the profitmargin.
It's standard capitalism really.
And yes, games cost (too) much money, but it is a luxury after all.
When the industry tells me that number and still continues to argue that games make 'little' money and people believe that: your guilible lapdogs for the industry.
Hell, for the amount they were promised you could make a descent or even a really good (read: expensive) game all by itself.
Games can easily knock off 5-10 euro per title and still make huge amounts of money, key is: they have to make a good game first, but corporate wants more profit/royalties. So we are flooded with repetitive boring crap for more money that plays it 'safe' and keeps the stockholders happy. Look at WoW: ever since it's evident succes we are flooded with mediocre MMO's, because investors think there is a lot of money to be made and marketshare to gain. Since all those crappy clone-like games dont sell as well as they think: prices might go up to make up for loss of income.(i know they usually get cheaper after release, but this happens usually after the results from the testgroups are in and investors get scared before the launch of a game) But once those prices are UP, they will never go down. And even games that are a 'sure thing' (like MW2) will be from now on marketed in that same new upped pricerange or at even higher prices to inflate the profitmargin.
It's standard capitalism really.
And yes, games cost (too) much money, but it is a luxury after all.
Everyone in the states doesn't really pay all that much for games. Your standard game price is $50 right? Obviously Australia gets kicked in the balls for pricing, but Canada(where I live) isn't too cheap. It isn't nearly as expensive as Australia, but it's still pricey. Most games are going for $69.99. Throw in the sales tax of 13%(that's ontario's tax rate) and you are up to almost $80 dollars for a game.
I have learned never to buy used games from EB or gamestop(yes I know it's the same company) because a current release used game can range from $54.99 to $64.99. What's the point of saving 5 bucks, when you know if you buy brand new you are guaranteed no problems. Some new release games go for $59.99, but even after the taxes, you are at $68 for a game. That is just ludicrous.
I have learned never to buy used games from EB or gamestop(yes I know it's the same company) because a current release used game can range from $54.99 to $64.99. What's the point of saving 5 bucks, when you know if you buy brand new you are guaranteed no problems. Some new release games go for $59.99, but even after the taxes, you are at $68 for a game. That is just ludicrous.
