Poll: It is Time to Fix Game Prices

[Treblaine]

With inflation, increased budget, development, etc., video games should cost well over $100 american today, but they don't.

Actually games have gone up in price FASTER than the rate of inflation

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

Games should be around $55 today, not $60 plus another $15-30 of launch-day DLC. So proportionately, for each person it is harder to pay. In fact with the amount of DLC the average game comes with many DO face a final price of around $100. Especially games with subscription.

Budgets may have gone up but also the market is larger, more people are playing games and more people are buying them. 24 Million copies of Modern Warfare 3 have been sold in only a few months. When you are selling a product with infinite reproducibility you don't increase the costs.

 

[hermes]

Game prices should be categorized in layers depending if they are AAA, AA or A games. I know many companies want to make a profit or every single game they release, but it is painfully obvious something like El Shaddai should not cost as much as Fallout 3.

I am not talking about the quality of the game, but the expectations of the company to sell them... Games like 3D Dot Game Hero were very good at 40 on release date, and they wouldn't have sold as many if they were more expensive.

Also, online retailers should do a better job at pricing their games. Steam has pretty good offers, but the prices on PSN and XBLA can be ridiculous at times.

 

[Treblaine]

snip

Heh, the funny thing is: There are retailers refusing to carry games where you can get better deals in DD, thus the 60$ pricepoint of many triple-A titles on Steam. (This is just a thought I had while reading your post)

DD? Direct Download?

Well that can only last up to a point, sooner or later the publishers will realise they are better off going all in on Steam/DD at $50 than keeping retail-stores in the loop.

 

[Spitfire]

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.

No price drops? Seriously? What does that accomplish, aside from never being able to buy a game that you couldn't afford on launch day?

 

[Farotsu]

Few guys did mention something about better pricing for games where the perhaps "sweet spot" would be and I have to agree with them. As it is right now I'm keeping myself very well entertained by any game that comes either free-to-play or pops out from Steam-sale and considering that a 60-50? prize-tag is just way too much which means that I will be passing on that game.

A lot of it is because of the risk-to-reward ratio. Especially lately I've found myself buying games that in fact don't meet my expectations even with any hype or recommendations concerning them and they stay unplayed in my library or on shelf so even a mainstream hit will most likely stay unbought. Now if Skyrim or Kingdoms of Amalur launched up with a 30? tag I'd probably pick them up, not to mention several others but as it is right now I don't really have the luxury to buy popular games just because they are popular when the game will end up unplayed and that 50? will be wasted.

So... Yes. I never bought Skyrim or so many other games. I only know stuff from Skyrim because of what I've read on the forums and what I tried to play on my brother's pc when I was passing by there. Yeah there probably were some games that I would've really enjoyed playing but I really don't wish to pay 50? a piece for 10 games to find one that I find entertaining.

 

[Treblaine]

snip

All depends on what time you take. NES times games costed around 60-80$ (again, Super Mario Bors. 3, released 1991 for 70$), today the pricepoint would be around 115$. On the other hand, if we take the last console gen then you are right.

Actually it's interesting to see how the pricepoint of games developed over the last ~20 years in correlation of increase of popularity and broader acceptance of games.

I'm comparing to 1996 price of CD based games as with the advance of storage technology it costs about as much to print a DVD/Blu-ray disc TODAY as it cost to print a CD in the mid 1990's i.e. less than 1 dollar per disc.

Too much has changed with the move from cartridge to optical-disc which is why I think it is not relevant to compare to price of SNES cartridges. ROM based storage is VERY expensive and made up a huge proportion of game price that completely disappears with the move to Optical Media which is very low manufacturing cost and lower cost with scale.

But going back to 1991, PC games (that were sold on CD or Floppy disc so cheap storage) only cost around $22. So by that standard PC games of today should only be around $40 and many of them ARE sold at that price.

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

 

[everythingbeeps]

People have to stop comparing video games to dvd movies. They aren't the same.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Popular games retain a higher price, not better.

Learned skill: Understands Capitalism!

 

[witheringsanity]

you seem to have totally forgot to adjust for inflation. inflation ALONE puts games in the $80-100 range, compared to the NES and SNES days. i'm just happy they've only gone up an average of $10, rather than $30-50.

 

[Liam Starrs]

i think its down to us really. its down to us to say "this game is shit" and on mass collectivly inform people that it is shit that way never again will the company throw money at a movie game or any other piece of shit. on the other side when a game comes out like ME3 we need to buy it. Everyone who has ever cared about games needs to pay full price for it not pirate it and fucking spend some money. its that simple

 

[Weslebear]

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.

You called.


HAH.

Ahem, OT:

I think brand new games should be released at £30, it's a reasonable price and avoids some game developers/publishers deciding that there games is worth £50 when it's all subjective.

Arcade titles are a hard call since they vary in quality from worth as much as AAA titles to a fun £2 aside for an hour or two, and possibly should be ranked by average game time perhaps, something that could be independently tested like an age rating.

Collectors editions should be priced by the companies as they include unique costs for each one, although maybe a limit should be imposed. Something like £100, possibly down to a rating but I'm not sure on this one.

 

[Treblaine]

you seem to have totally forgot to adjust for inflation. inflation ALONE puts games in the $80-100 range, compared to the NES and SNES days. i'm just happy they've only gone up an average of $10, rather than $30-50.

Yes, but that was BEFORE the switch from ROM storage to CD/Optical-media storage that saw price plummet from $60 down to $30 in the early 1990's. ROM storage is expensive, not a factor any more.

 

[Wolfram23]

I just find it hilarious how many not-so-good games try to charge $60, then bomb, and then pirates get blamed for everything.

Uh, your game was shit and not worth the price of admission. Lower price, and maybe you'd get some bloody sales. People are willing to buy mediocre games if they're cheap.

I mean, obviously they have a budget, and projected sales, and can determine a pretty good guess on how many games they'd have to sell at X price to turn a profit. Alternatively you could say they anticipate to earn Y amount of profit per sale.

The problem is that they're pretty bad at knowing how many will sell. They assume $60, and they can go by whatever figures for similar games, but it seems to me like they never bother to figure out whether their game is actually going to be worth the $60 to the consumer. There's no reason a game's price should drop by $10-20 within a month besides the publisher being greedy and trying to rake in as many suckers as they can before people realize the game is crappy. Then they give in and go, "ok, sorry, you're right. The game is really only worth $40" and then sales pick up. The problem here, I think, is that they lose a lot of potential sales as there is always at least some hype, and hope, when a new game comes out. On top of that the game will unavoidably be pirated and word of mouth spreads fast. The whole crowd of people who pirate due to being unsure about the quality of a product might have bought the game upfront if they thought the risk of it turning out shitty was worth the cost.

Anyway, I'm just rambling and probably not making sense at this point so... I'll just say that I think $60 for all games is stupid. One analogy to make is cars. Cars come with different prices for a reason - production/engineering costs, projected sales, and market value. Games have different costs because... it's AAA or it's Indie. Smooth.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

My solution is simple.

REDUCE THE BUDGET FOR GAMES.

DO we REALLY, on a fundamental level, need billion dollar graphics? Because unless I'm playing an epic adventure game (say, skyrim), then I am not going to be stopping to admire the view all that often. Especially not if I'm in a firefight.

By reducing the budget, it will cost less to MAKE the game, allowing the game to be sold for cheaper.

Yeah, sure, you'll probably lose the frat boy "ZOMGIFITSNOTHDITSSHIIIIIIITTTTTTT" crowd. But I honestly think that game making budgets are getting out of hand. And it's not just me. Someone from the Homefront Team came to a games-as-literature class I had last semester, and his biggest gripe with the industry is how inflated budgets are putting more pressure on them to sell more and more copies, causing even moderate successes to become failures.

 

[FoolKiller]

I would like to make a point that is often overlooked.

NES games retailed for anything between $49.99 and $79.99.
Adjusting for inflation, and you are paying significantly less for even the biggest modern AAA titles compared to older titles.
This is not debatable. This is objective fact. You, the consumer, are paying considerably less money for games today, than those who gamed on the NES.

I almost agree with you. I have been saying for ages that the games are cheap for $60 because even last gen I had to pay $70 for most games if I wanted to be an early adopter.

My only problem is that I don't get the game for $60 anymore. I get part of it, and then have the headache of being forced into digital distribution for the rest of it. I know there are some game with legitimate DLC but a lot of games clearly have gaps in content where they will sell you the stuff later. Capcom and Microsoft are extremely guilty of this.

So while I will not say that I should pay less per title than $60, I do think that we are paying more in the end for the same experience.

The truth is that the video game reached the golden age last gen and is going to be on a decline as the market is super-saturated with too many games. Not only do I have a backlog of games, but thanks to periods like October and November of last year, I have a backlog of AAA titles. As a gamer, I can't keep up with it as I also have a life outside of my hobby.

In summary, games do not need price fixing. The market will adjust for it. As it becomes more and more competitive with more games coming out, even AAA titles will find it challenging to sell at a higher price point.

 

[Meight08]

The current prices are a CARTEL!
Is everybody too stupid to realize it?
Forcing publishers to sell games for 60 dollars online,every game having the same price,keeping the prices of new games high so they can keep selling used and bite the hand that feeds it in the process.
This people is a cartel You don't fix it you report it to the nearest consumer union.
Move along

 

[Murmillos]

I'm sorry but that incorrect. FUCKING INCORRECT! A pirated copy of a game can be made 9,000 times over for free, a used game can only be bought once and can only be used on one disc,

Ok, we can debate semantics on how many times a pirated copy can be used (9000 times at once) vrs a used game (only one at a time) until we are blue in the face. But here is the rub; with buying used, you are telling the developer "I have money to spend & I like your product, but since I don't have "enough" money to spend, I'm going to give it to somebody else." They see that message strong and clearly as to do nothing but produce more low content high priced DLC to generate money.

Hell, I'd rather people save their money and pirate ONE game and then used that saved-combined money to buy their next game new; instead of spliting that money buying two used games. At least in once case the developer is getting the money earned properly due.

I'd have no problem buying used if GameStop or Best Buy begun to send 10-20% of the sale price of a used game to the developer. Then perhaps we would stop seeing less low content and day one DLC's along with content locked online passes for single player games.

Either way, the morality of it argument is that the developer is not getting money either way - used sales erks them as you blatently flaut that you have money to buy their game, yet not support the developer by buying their game in a manner that they get money from that purchase.

 

[2xDouble]

Of course, that would be completely disproportionate with other media, which haven't risen with inflation. So why it "should" be more expensive for them now is incredibly questionable.

Additionally, the fact is game companies are making a lot more with that same price point than they did even a few years ago, let alone 20 years ago.

While that was deliberate exaggeration of inflated prices, you're absolutely wrong about other media and inflation. Compare to other prices of things in 1989: movie tickets - $5 each ($3 matinee), TV service - free or $30/month, average book price - $5, small off-broadway theater tickets - $10.

...to prices of things today: movie tickets - $12 to $20 each ($9 matinee), TV service - $40 to $100 per month minimum, average book price - $14, small off-broadway theater tickets - $70.

Disclaimer: I don't have "official" sales numbers, these are from my own records.

Actually games have gone up in price FASTER than the rate of inflation

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

Games should be around $55 today, not $60 plus another $15-30 of launch-day DLC. So proportionately, for each person it is harder to pay. In fact with the amount of DLC the average game comes with many DO face a final price of around $100. Especially games with subscription.

How exactly does $60-$75 from 20 years ago, adjusted for inflation, equate to $55 now? According to that very website, a game that cost $60 in 1989 costs $104 in 2010. And the $75 AAA title (Super Mario Bros. 3) would cost $130 in 2010. Even with DLC and certain subs, you're paying less than that.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The correct answer is "Let economics decide what is fair."
Consumers should always be voting with their wallets; if they don't like a practice or part of a deal, they should negotiate and let the supplier know what or why.

But since virtually ALL game-transactions are a "take it or leave it" basis, then they need to decide how far is too far. If you complain about DRM, and buy a game that has that kind of DRM in it, we have contradicted ourselves and screwed up somewhere along the way.

Be wary of companies trying to out-market you, rather than providing better goods worth purchasing. And of course, the nastiest trap now is that gaming publishers are trying to turn products into services (while still marketing them as products, natch) with VERY one-sided terms and no room for negotiation.

If you don't like that, don't use those systems. We can cull the unwanted if we put even an ounce of self-control and effort forward, but I doubt anyone would stick to it.

Do that, and game prices will fix themselves.

 

[Treblaine]

Actually games have gone up in price FASTER than the rate of inflation

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

Games should be around $55 today, not $60 plus another $15-30 of launch-day DLC. So proportionately, for each person it is harder to pay. In fact with the amount of DLC the average game comes with many DO face a final price of around $100. Especially games with subscription.

How exactly does $60-$75 from 20 years ago, adjusted for inflation, equate to $55 now? According to that very website, a game that cost $60 in 1989 costs $104 in 2010. And the $75 AAA title (Super Mario Bros. 3) would cost $130 in 2010. Even with DLC and certain subs, you're paying less than that.

One acronym: ROM

ROM is very expensive, and it gets geometrically more expensive it you want to make it very quickly, in the 1980's that was the only format console games were sold on, in cartridges. And it is no longer used (except for on handhelds).

Today console games are sold on optical media like CD, DVD or Blu-ray which is VERY cheap to manufacture, less than a dollar per disc. Same then, as today.

So, I am taking my baseline of inflation from the early/mid 90's when there was a move from ROM storage to Optical Disc storage where price plummeted from $60 to around $40. N64 in the 1990's games cost around $80 because of the extra ROM it had to use. PC games in the early 90's like Doom cost around $30.

Bottom line: 1996 PS1 games cost around $40 BECAUSE the huge cost of ROM Cartridge storage was eliminated.