How Much SHOULD a Game Cost?

[Zyphonee]

Easy; 4 US Dollars per hour of average single player playtime. It's pretty much the same cost of a film.

+5 or 10 depending on the Multiplayer content.

 

[Con Carne]

I'd be happy if ps3 games were the same price as ps2 games, before the current consoles came out. $49.99 was a reasonable price. I hate paying $59.99 or even the occasional $69.99 I don't give a rats ass if a game is on a blu ray disc. It doesn't make the plastic or the information burned onto it anymore valuable.

 

[BioHazardMan]

Let's say it's a digital release, like, say, a TF2 download. For every hour you spend downloading it, you are refunded a dollar. I spend 14 FUCKING hours downloading TF2 today. I should get back 14 dollars.

So if you have dial-up internet, downloading at 5 kb a second, you should have be refunded a thousand dollars?

Who would buy TF2 if they can't even play on a dial-up connection?

 

[MaVeN1337]

I think it should be:

$40 new
$30 used
$15 and under depending on age and replay value

 

[e2density]

Console/Handheld $25
PC $30

50% off if used.

 

[The Night Shade]

30$ or Below

 

[Squilookle]

Everyone can fight on this forever, but I think a new, console release should be about 40 dollars. A Handheld game should be about 20. Your thoughts?

You want to try putting the type of dollar on there, so the rest of us know where you're going with it?

I think the price should be directly proportional to the number of hours in the singleplayer. Then if it has multiplayer, that adds a fixed amount onto the price, a little bit for split screen only (probably won't give you much mileage), a fair amount for online multiplayer (probably a good 5 years of guaranteed play), and a lot for bot supported multiplayer (can play multiplayer indefinitely)

 

[Semudara]

Console: $50. The people who upped it to $60 are price-gougers and I honestly can't believe that we as gamers let them get away with it. Gaming is an expensive hobby as it is. $50 is PLENTY, and just right.

Handheld: $35-$40

 

[killcheese]

I say go back to the $50 standard, that seems fair for a new game. Although that does not really affect me because i only buy games when they are on sale for no more then $30 and recently have been playing nearly exclusively pc games through steam.

 

[Jodah]

I would rather the money gets split up differently. Rather than having the Publishers receiving the majority of the cash, the developers, designers, storywriters, etc should get more. But hey, thats never going to happen.

 

[Magicman10893]

The current price is fine, I have a problem with DLC and trade in value. If I buy a game for $60 and sell the game back a month later while the game IS STILL $60!!!!!!!!!!! I expect to at least get between $30 and $40 depending on disc quality, not $5 and change.

Also spending about 1/6 the cost of the game for 3 fucking maps (Halo, Call of Duty) is not fair pricing especially since the maps usually suck, don't get played on unless you're in the special playlist that has ONLY those maps, or are extremely easy to exploit. I spent $7 on DLC for Saints Row 2 and got 3 missions that lasted approximately 10 minutes. Considering my total play time for the game I spent $30 on is over 120 hours, the price to time ratio is severely low (and so was the price to enjoyment ratio). If the game has 15 maps to begin with, in a game that is half multiplayer and half singleplayer, and is $60: The cost of a map pack with only 3 maps should only be $6.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

Thats almost like an Activision thought right there /suprised face.

game companies arent our friends. they are a company and their main goal is profits. i wonder if game prices will end up being like console prices. for example a new release costing 200 and after 2 months drops abit in price and keeps dropping till sales try up. price skimming FTW

Downloads definitely shouldn't be $50 or more. There isn't even a disc and case, so there's no excuse not to have the price at $40 or less.

i think they have lots of excuses. the main one being they match or slightly undercut retail versions so they max their profits.

I already knew that factor and thats why i was saying £500 as an actual parody.

 

[NobodyHereButUsTrees]

I'm seeing a lot of suggestions for $40 and I am liking that, but to be honest, I would be content with a solid $50. I remember when the 360 came out in 05 and games suddenly just cost an extra 10 dollars more. What the heck was up with that?

Also, 60 is an arbitrary number and I dislike it so.

 

[teebeeohh]

30? for the game, another 10? to enable multiplayer/dlc
20-35? for handhelds.
and please start converting $ to ? anywhere near the actual vaule, not 1 to 1

 

[Justanothergamer300]

It matters on the content of the game, which platform it's on, is it downloadable, retail, budget game, etc

I'd like most games to be brought down in price but thats not going to happen.
I'd like it even more i you could buy parts of a game, all I want is the multiplayer or single player but that's really not going to happen.

Like plants vs zombie's is I think 2.00 bucks or less on Iphone, 15.00 bucks on xbox 360, and 5.00 bucks on DS

But 40 might be a great price for console games

 

[Merkavar]

Thats almost like an Activision thought right there /suprised face.

game companies arent our friends. they are a company and their main goal is profits. i wonder if game prices will end up being like console prices. for example a new release costing 200 and after 2 months drops abit in price and keeps dropping till sales try up. price skimming FTW

Downloads definitely shouldn't be $50 or more. There isn't even a disc and case, so there's no excuse not to have the price at $40 or less.

i think they have lots of excuses. the main one being they match or slightly undercut retail versions so they max their profits.

I already knew that factor and thats why i was saying £500 as an actual parody.

im a little confused with you saying $50 and 500 pounds or what ever.

But what i was saying is that a retail new release seems to be $50-60. And i was saying that downloads are going to match or slightly beat this price. so i think were actually agreeing with each other.

 

[retrofish18]

45 to 50 dollars for console game, 30 to 40 dollars for a handheld game and what ever they want for a downloadable title.

 

[Defense]

Actually, I think the price is just fine right now. Most quality DS titles are $35 new, PSP titles are about $40-$45 new, and PS3/360 titles just have so much content. It's a great price considering that these are discs and not cartridges, which could reach $80 for certain games on the N64.

Yeah, I wish the price would go down a smidge, $5-$10 would be really nice, but I think it should depend more on the individual game instead of generalizing. Chrono Trigger should never be the same price as Imagine: Babyz.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

Thats almost like an Activision thought right there /suprised face.

game companies arent our friends. they are a company and their main goal is profits. i wonder if game prices will end up being like console prices. for example a new release costing 200 and after 2 months drops abit in price and keeps dropping till sales try up. price skimming FTW

Downloads definitely shouldn't be $50 or more. There isn't even a disc and case, so there's no excuse not to have the price at $40 or less.

i think they have lots of excuses. the main one being they match or slightly undercut retail versions so they max their profits.

I already knew that factor and thats why i was saying £500 as an actual parody.

im a little confused with you saying $50 and 500 pounds or what ever.

But what i was saying is that a retail new release seems to be $50-60. And i was saying that downloads are going to match or slightly beat this price. so i think were actually agreeing with each other.

In short yes downloads will always be the better option.

 

[Judgement101]

From an industry perspective the price is fine. As a gamer of course you are going to want a lower price.