Poll: It is Time to Fix Game Prices

[Yan007]

Gee, I just can't wait for games to be $100 USD. Then maybe I can stop feeling guilty for the poor industry.

 

[Kapol]

I hate how people feel the need to compare the games industry to others when trying to make their arguments. Games are a fairly new and unique form of entertainment which brings with it both many unique problems and solutions.

A lot of people in this thread seem to compare it to the movie industry. But the movie industry has something that games don't: theaters. A movie quite often makes it's investment back, or at least a good portion of it, while in theaters alone. And when it doesn't, it's considered a failure. Games don't have anything like that. And they can't really find a way to be like that. Games are too long and too much of an individualistic experience to have anything like the shared experience of a theater-going situation.

In my opinion, game prices are fine as they are. I'm actually surprised they haven't gone up... though that's because any game that tried it would be attacked by a lot of people. Saying that they should go down in price doesn't make much sense to me. While the market for games has gone up, so has the cost. Gaming in general, especially more niche gaming like anything that's not a giant shooter, still isn't incredibly common in popularity. There are still a lot of people who consider it a waste of time and resources. Mostly older people yes, but that still limits the market quite a bit.

I do think that older games should drop in price, but most the time they do. It's only big games that still have a huge customer base like the CoD franchise that really don't go down. And that's because they don't have to.

 

[sketch_zeppelin]

Since more and more things are going digital i want to see a drop in price to reflect the cut in cost for the production companies and because we no longer have the option of turning around and selling the product once we're done with it.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Turns out the market for games allocates prices like that already. The devs of Section 8 realized that $60 was too high of an initial price and decided to sell the sequel for a third of that amount.

hah ahh love that picture...and they were right, i bought the 2nd one and am thoroughly enjoying it for the fractioned price it was sold for.

OT: there is no point really, if you aren't satisfied with the price, then wait for it to drop, or save your money more. i haven't bought a cod game in years because i still think they are all over priced and not worth even half that, regardless if i want to play them with my friends. Just deal with it till the price goes down or you find something to replace it. (unfortunately we all know cod prices drop once every frickin decade..so it'll be a while before i have those games.)

 

[DarkRyter]

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.

There is still supply. Even though distribution costs have been minimized, the development costs of the game ensures that there exists a price point where the game must be sold to be profitable.

Naturally, the price will be set to the point of greatest profit (the equilibrium), so the price will be set as high as it can be set where people will still buy it. If it's 35 dollars, it'll be 35 dollars.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that any price point that isn't based around the balance between how much people are willing to pay for it and how much people are willing to sell it for is arbitrary.

 

[manic_depressive13]

I have an idea for a radical overhaul of the system:

Stop overcharging Australians. You fucking assholes. Game prices here should be the equivalent of prices in America.

 

[aashell13]

If you go on steam, you can buy a given game at practically any price, provided you're willing to wait for a sale. I agree that $60 is 2-3 times what most games are worth, so I usually buy them on sale. I don't think I've ever gotten a game on release day. It also means I don't play on consoles, and pretty soon I probably won't be able to play anything by EA.

 

[Fugitive Panda]

Standard game prices definitely needs to change, and there have been quite a few discussions on this topic by plenty of respected people in the business, some on this very site.

They're simply too expensive for the way game companies have been handling them. They went for the casual market and they got it, they started commercializing games, releasing more and more on a consistent, predictable basis, it's no wonder people are hesitant to buy brand new, and less likely to hold onto their games. They say used games are killing the industry, but maybe people wouldn't be so happy to wait if buying a new game didn't cost $60 to $100, and then they wouldn't be so tempted to trade it if they could afford the next new release too.

But of course, none of the movers or shakers in the industry is going to be the first to reduce their price. They're happy to overcharge for as long as people are willing to pay, and just blame the inefficiency on pirates or used games or whatever until the problem gets too big to ignore and they're forced to make some sacrifices.

 

[lacktheknack]

We're currently running on pricing that I cannot believe is real. As they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[Rad Party God]

Meh, I'm used to my sweet wallet raping deals of Steam, GOG and the Humble Indie Bundles. Skyrim costs $60, but it droped a day before christmas and right now it dropped a couple of bucks, so it's even cheaper than what I paid for it (worth every single penny if you ask me).

It doesn't need fixing as it is. At least not in PC gaming.

 

[Random Fella]

As much as i'd like cheaper games, the industry works by supply and demand, so I won't get that
And how the system works currently is fine for me, some retails overprice old games but that's there choice when I can get the same game online for 1/4 the price.
So, it should stay the same imo.

 

[TheFinalFantasyWolf]

As someone from Australia, I'd be happy with the $60 that the folks in America have to pay.

 

[TehCookie]

I don't think the price of games should change, but I think companies should produce more AA games that sell for $40-$50. With low budget games like that companies may be more likely to try new things that are still too expensive for indie games.

We pay for what a game is worth. If you don't see it as 'worth' so, you don't buy it. Simple really. Wait for it to drop in price. We are spoiled in thinking time of development matters, frames per second matter, ect, when seeing the day one price of a game.

Also this. Games prices decline over time, they are not stuck at $60 or whatever the release price is forever. If you can't afford it or don't want to pay that much all you have to do is wait. If you want to be one of the first to play it and keep up with the newest games, cough up the money. Videogames are not a necessity.

 

[Kakashi on crack]

It should be decided upon by the companies at what price a game should be sold at. While demand dictates that VGs are too expensive, its the companies who keep the price at 60$.

 

[Veylon]

What's all this complaining about game prices? Now matter what they are originally, they all find their way into the bargain bin eventually. Final Fantasy XIII may have started out at $60, but it's $20 now. The prices work by what people are willing to pay, just the same as football tickets or diamonds.

 

[As Seen On 360]

I don't see that there's anything that needs to be fixed. The caliber of technology as well as other factors brought up the base price, it's not as if the companies charge 60 bucks just to be greedy.

Your proposition also has holes in it, particularly basing price on the quality of the game. It condemns new IPs, which haven't found their way into the AAA, AA or any other type of category as they've yet to reach the populace and be deemed a quality title. If a company has to choose between a new idea that could literally bankrupt them if it's not a resounding success, and the top selling franchises that are already established and would probably surpass 60 dollars in terms of variables, it's not hard to predict where things will wind up.

That and some indie games are considered AAA and have massive followings, so there would need to be reputable professionals solely dedicated to judging a game's worth because the factors are too ambiguous. If it were based on bias such as Metacritic, it would be far too easy to down vote a game to pennies on the dollar, and despite being part of the community I can't say gamers would be above abusing that power.

The companies do what they gotta do, it might be simple from the outside looking in but if we had the final word for just one month, most of the developers and publishers would be piles of smoldering rubble, with signs declaring "Our fans knew best".

 

[viking97]

games ought to be cheaper, but your system is pretty awful. 45-50 i'd be fine with paying for launch titles, but after a month on shelves they should go down to 30 or so.

then again i do most of my shopping on steam, the land of 50% off sales every other nanosecond

 

[FateOrFatality]

You all earn the right to complain about game prices once you've lived in Australia. Generally, we pay twice as much as those in the U.S, and our dollar is worth more than theirs.

 

[silversnake4133]

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.

Uh, you do realize that the "factors" you mentioned are concepts/titles that can't warrant a price tag just for existing. It's kind of like trying to justify charging 20$ for an apple because it was picked by a certain gardener on a Tuesday while it was raining. Pricing items has its own guidelines put forth by people called "PRODUCERS". Even before a game/production is written or developed aside from a plot line and a working title. The big wigs of the company meet with one another to discuss certain aspects of the game and production cycle during the earliest stage of development. This is generally where schedules are developed and ideas are run by the producers who will ultimately approve or decline the idea. If an idea is approved, the producers will develop a budget that they are willing to allow for production and marketing. This is where prices will eventually be drawn, and in some countries, depending on taxes, currency exchange rates, and all that good stuff, prices for individual sale will vary.

Since the budget for a game is made WAAAAAYYYY before it is even put into full-blown production, they can't give the game it's price tag based on how "good" the game is because it wasn't even made yet. And being "good" or "bad" is an opinion. What one person may see as a masterpiece, another will think it's a piece of trash. Same goes for expectations and demographics. These people don't know essentially who is going to buy the game or how well it will pick up with the public. That speculation is even harder to guess today because of how fucked the economy is. Also, why would you have "Genre" decide how expensive or cheap a game is? That's like discrimination against the game. "Oh you're a shooter so you're going to be marked down. Oh, here's an RPG, that's going right up there in the expensive category." Yeah, not a lot of sense there.

So in short, no I do not believe it is "time to fix game prices" because there really isn't anything to be "fixed". Prices are worked out of a set budget, not determined when the game is shipped to gaming stores. That would just be stupid and screw up everything financial in the gaming industry, and as a result, big name developers wouldn't turn over profits and Indie developers would essentially "sell out" over night.

Trust me, this is one can of worms that is best left ALONE! Just stick to keeping to your own budget. If you can afford it and want it, great. Buy it. If you don't have the money, but want it. WAIT FOR A PRICE DROP! If you don't want it at all, don't buy it! Simple economics here.

 

[Wintermoot]

I actually like the current pricing system
want it on the day it,s released? 60$
want to pay a little less? wait a while and pay 20$ on steam.