Poll: It is Time to Fix Game Prices

[Murmillos]

Take a look at the Christmas steam sale for Skyrim. Everybody who hadn't yet bought it for $60 was going NUTS for it when it reached $40.

Other then 1 or 2 games that I buy on launch (because I support/trust the developer), I often wait until I can get the game $40; and short of few AAA-AAA-AAA games [thats right.. Triple-Triple-A games] that's 2-3 months down the road.

I never by used - because if you are buying used, you are basically saying I'm legally pirating the game. I don't have a problem people trading games, because no 3rd party company is getting money out of the swap - but buying used is shafting the developer on your hard earned money by giving it to a 3rd party company that doesn't deserve it.
I'd rather hear people pirate a game, then buy used from gamestop/bestbuy; but I'd still better rather people buying it new in the first place.

New -> Pirates -> Buying used scum.

$59.99 is hard to imagine paying a game for, $49.99 is bearable, but $39.99 is nearly always an easy buy - I think the sweet spot for new games should be $34.99

 

[buchno]

I wonder how the world would look like if you purchased games like you do music and movies nowadays; i.e. in a "streaming service"-like system like Spotify or Netflix. If you payed a set amount of money to be able to play as many games as you want in a set library.

Of course, a version of this system exists already for MMORPG:s, but I mean it to encase single player games as well.

If some company offers this service right now, I must have missed it.

 

[liveslowdiefast]

yes there are flaws, but it could be a lot worse. and even if we bitched, they wouldn't listen just like with DRM, online passes and what not.

 

[liveslowdiefast]

I wonder how the world would look like if you purchased games like you do music and movies nowadays; i.e. in a "streaming service"-like system like Spotify or Netflix. If you payed a set amount of money to be able to play as many games as you want in a set library.

Of course, a version of this system exists already for MMORPG:s, but I mean it to encase single player games as well.

If some company offers this service right now, I must have missed it.

Its called onlive, you should check it out, its pretty cool.

 

[buchno]

Snip

Its called onlive, you should check it out, its pretty cool.

Ah, they didn't exist last year when I looked around for such a service!
Thanks for notifying :]

 

[Semudara]

Games have had the average price of $50 for a long time. I'd prefer that it stay that way; especially considering the rise of paid DLC, $60 really is a bit much for a game.

That said, it's not a HUGE deal, so I wouldn't say it needs to be FIXED. I'm at least reasonably happy with the current system, though that may have to do with the fact that I'm a Wii owner, so my games are still $50 each. ^_^

 

[kenu12345]

no its there choice to make not ours. If you dont like change it with your money by not buying it. Thats how it works. off topic but this thread reminds me of atlas shrugged.

 

[2xDouble]

Game prices HAVE been pretty well "fixed" since their inception. Video games in 1989 cost over $70 American. They contained less content, and had FAR shorter development times, and next to no budget compared to even cheap games today. With inflation, increased budget, development, etc., video games should cost well over $100 american today, but they don't. The prices went down thanks to the cheap distribution methods of the digital age (CDs, DVDs, internet distribution, etc).

Totalbiscuit talks more about it.

 

[Sprinal]

I don't think this system would work.

Something is worth what someone will pay for it.
Your system is essentially Tiered in a way that doesn't take that into account.
It's an idea. But so is project 10 dollar.

The only thing that needs to adjusted in the world of retail when it comes to vidya is the prices for Australian consumers.
If games were $60 here then that would be really nice (or the game is half a year old).

 

[Zen Toombs]

Games that are great continue to stay high because people are willing to pay it (see Call of Duty, Halo, Madden, etc.)

I find your lack of taste disturbing.

 

[tippy2k2]

Yes, cut them one third, they are too freaking expensive. No profit you say? Reduce the freaking costs!

Reduce the cost! Someone get EA on the line, they need to hear this radical new theory!

I'm sure they would love to reduce the cost but you don't snap your finger and the cost reduces. Something has to take a hit and the demands of the average gamer simply won't allow that.

Games that are great continue to stay high because people are willing to pay it (see Call of Duty, Halo, Madden, etc.)

I find your lack of taste disturbing.

Alright, I'll give you a point for that one; well played. How about "popular" instead of great since there's no accounting for tastes?

 

[Kefo]

Your system is flawed unfortunately. The amount of hype a game can have and it being touted as a AAA title should have no bearing on price. Want an example? see Rage.

Touted as a AAA title and had so much hype you could feed a third world country for a year yet the game was crap. It refused to play on many systems, had no customizable UI or graphics settings and for those that it did work out for it was under 9 hours to beat. It wasn't very exciting, You felt like you were being forced along a corridor by someone pistol whipping you forward and the ending was crap.

On the flip side I payed 20 dollars for Amnesia: the dark descent which is considered indie. I would have happily payed 50 dollars for that game. The game had story, it had very little dialogue and no weapons to speak of but I didnt stop playing it until I beat it and it had moments where I wanted to crap my pants. Let me state that again, no weapons, hardly any dialogue but an amazing story and atmosphere that sucked you in and made you want more.

Seems indie developers have got it right and know how to create a decent game. I'd like to temper that last statement by saying that I dont believe that all big titles are crap or that all indie games are gifts to mankind but it seems lately that the indie dev knows how to create a game better then the idiots with millions of dollars to waste

 

[Waaghpowa]

I'd just like to say that games are actually cheaper now with inflation than they were 10-15 years ago. Back then they were 60 dollars....before inflation. Though I don't like paying what we consider to be high prices, they sure as hell could be a lot worse.

 

[Yan007]

I never by used - because if you are buying used, you are basically saying I'm legally pirating the game. I don't have a problem people trading games, because no 3rd party company is getting money out of the swap - but buying used is shafting the developer on your hard earned money by giving it to a 3rd party company that doesn't deserve it.
I'd rather hear people pirate a game, then buy used from gamestop/bestbuy; but I'd still better rather people buying it new in the first place.

New -> Pirates -> Buying used scum.

$59.99 is hard to imagine paying a game for, $49.99 is bearable, but $39.99 is nearly always an easy buy - I think the sweet spot for new games should be $34.99

It's great that you see it that way actually. I currently live in mainland China and legit games are extremely hard to come by. They are illegal and purchasing the real deal is therefore difficult and expensive. I just bought SC V and FF XIII-2 new online+shipping through one of the few reliable sources that do ship here because I care.

Still, the more I hear people like you calling "used" gamers thieves I just feel like I should take a 5 minute walk to the mart, have my console chipped and get my games, including DLC for $3.00 . Luxury you say? I don't care. I'm a gamer and I game. I do my best to do it legally and support the industry but I'm sure the day will come when I'll get tired being spit on by rich elite kids and the industry.

 

[Blade_125]

Economics 101

Every item is worth what the buyer is willing to pay for it.

If you don't think a game is worth the price, don't buy it.

 

[DarkRyter]

Alright escapist. I am going to try and accomplish this. This thread is going to be asking the very simple question. Should the way we price games be fixed? Should the way we sell games be fixed? What about marketing and such?

Answer the poll please and if you wish, give an explanation on your reasoning and if you wish the pricing should be fixed, how so? Perhaps we can actually form a new method to price games.

For me, I think it should be fixed and I think a game should not be priced how long it's been on shelves and whether or not it is on a shelf. I think we should price games based on several factors. What type of game is it? Is it a AAA game? AA game? Indie? Has the game been given high expectations? What is the targeted audience? How big is that audience? How much "content" does the game have?

I think all of these factors, and probably several others should be considered. If a game like Section 8 comes out with a very small interest level and no big names tied with it, not to mention nothing but multiplayer fun. This would price it at something like an Arcade game. A game like Mass Effect should have the full retail price [The current $60].

The factor of content is very difficult to measure, which the genre of the game and its audience can help define.

My method is not fully thought out but that's what this thread is for.

Anyone who has ever sold anything will tell you this is a terrible way to price things.

Now let me tell you's about some economics, yo.

There is supply. Sellers want to supply more at a higher price point.

There is demand. Buyers want to buy more at a lower price point.

At the point where supply and demand meet, that is the chart.

There is no such thing as "content". There is no such thing as "quality". At least, not to the retail market. There is only supply. And there is only demand.

 

[Signa]

You think $59.99 is hard to pay for? I live in Australia, and do you really think I could afford to fork out $100 for EVERY new release that comes out?

You're just as capable of doing that as we are. Your minimum wage is double our minimum wage. I'm not sure about your actual cost of living, but a quick Google search showed there wasn't a lot of disparity between what I see here in the US. Also, that dude's post was rational and level-headed. There was no need to jump down his throat like that.

 

[Darknacht]

Economics 101

Every item is worth what the buyer is willing to pay for it.

If you don't think a game is worth the price, don't buy it.

This^. Also games are a lot cheaper then they used to be so stop griping.

 

[Mordereth]

Your terrible system is terrible.

You're asking publishers to voluntarily mark down shitty games, basically placing a giant sticker on the box saying "this game blows!"

What do you care if Section 8 costs $60? If you want it, you buy it, if you don't, you don't. If you kind of want it, wait for a price drop. If it sells as poorly as you expect, the price drop will happen quickly. Why are publishers obligated to essentially make the price drop instantaneous?

Knock it off with your entitlement issues. I'm so sick of this attitude of "if I can't afford it, it's too expensive."

Be more selective about what games you buy.

The pricing is fine. It's essentially what it's always been.

You can buy Thief: Deadly Shadows or Thief: The Dark Project now for much cheaper and get much more game out of it.

It's the idea with pay apps on phones- the cheapness encourages risks. Section 8 could be a really solid game for all I know, but if know no-one with it and I don't have another way of testing it out to see it's fun for me...

I'd pay $25 bucks and take a chance, but not $60. That's the difference between some money and no money for a publisher, and if Steam sales are anything to go by gamers as a buying group are very susceptible to low pricing at the right time.

 

[Signa]

There is no such thing as "content". There is no such thing as "quality". At least, not to the retail market. There is only supply. And there is only demand.

which is where the real problem comes in. With digital products, there really isn't "supply" anymore, just demand. The problem is you can't really price a game based on demand... or maybe you could. It could encourage people to buy games day-1, and anyone who chooses to "wait and see" might have to pay more because the demand went up and so did the price. As some one said, a $35 price point is a good impulse-buy level (Hell, I ended up with $70+ DS games before I realized it) and after that captures enough people's attention, raise it to $50, then $60 and only bring it down once people stop caring.