Poll: It is Time to Fix Game Prices

[Soundchekz]

Games have always been expensive. This is not a new issue. In fact, I would say that games are a better deal now than they used to be. You used to buy a game say for the NES, play it for only a few hours. Now we have fantastic graphics, DLC, improved gameplay, and great fanbases, so don't whine about game prices when gaming is so much better than it used to be.

 

[getoffmycloud]

I think maybe a small drop in price even if it is only $10 would be good for the industry because that small drop would probably encourage more people to buy games as they would be seen to be getting cheaper and that encourages people to buy.

 

[Treblaine]

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.

No TV is worth $100 per month, especially as a minimum. Doubly considering the much lower cost of internet + netflix + hulu etc.

PS: I don't think Broadway is trying to keep ticket prices any way in line with inflation, as there is a HIGH demand for a limited number of seats and few showings. Cost is inevitably going to skyrocket with such high demand and low supply.

 

[Savagezion]

No game should cost over $40. Want to know why?

A movie blockbuster movie costs $100-200m to make. A AAA game currently costs ~30m. L.A. Noire was toted as a big freakin deal for costing 60m. GTA4 had a big hoopla made about how it cost 100m but most of it was for music contracts.
Movies on the other hand, charge $9 for a theatre ticket and $20 for the DvD. So for $30 bucks you can go to the theatre and see the movie and own it on DvD. This not only recoups the cost of the budget but most often, dips into profit.

This would effectively have more people buying games simply because they are affordable. As well, it would cut down the mark-up on used games the industry acts like they care so much about.

Well, games and movies aren't 100% comparable. Movies have more venues to sell on than games.

Game publishers are little by little screwing themselves over on this. First they shifted off PC and went console because "too much piracy is on PC". Now, used games are being attacked by the next generation. (Project $10 obviously isn't good enough for them.) Which means whoever doesn't buy a console exclusive next generation is going to have to wait for a re-release if they ever want to play it. (Assuming it never gets cracked.)

A movie will fist be shown in the theater, where it makes a lot of money because a lot more people go to the movies than play video games.

Because its $10. $13 if you want to see it in 3D. And they recoup hundreds of millions doing that in weeks, sometimes 1 week! You want me to risk $10 bucks? I'm game. You want me to risk $60? Hell no.
You guys are failing to read that my argument is there are more people that go to the movies than play games because its a cheaper habit.

The point still stands that studios have made back $200m dollar shelling out $10 tickets to a movie.

So by the time you get to the DVD and Blu Ray release you have earned most of your money back, and the sales will be more or less pure profit. Then the movie will be sold to TV stations etc.

Every time a new movie format comes out, all those movies will be resold in better quality.

A game is:
Released, sold for a few months and forgotten, until someone maybe does an HD remake or put it on GoG...

Not to mention a video game gives you at least 4 times the entertainment time...

First, games expect their budget back in a month so that any future sales are pure profit. You can look at month 1 as their "theatrical release" it isn't sometimes, they expect it back in 3 months. That is not a ridiculous comparison. The games industry models themselves after the movie industry heavily so the comparison is about 80-90% accurate.

Second, buying the Mary Poppins on Blue Ray isn't gonna mean shit but a higher resolution, which means little in terms of actual video quality. Unless it gets "remastered" for HD release, you may as well have the DvD and your blue ray player will push the resolution up for you. Only movies made in for HD are going to benefit from Blue Ray. Buying a color television didn't change I love Lucy into a color TV show.

Third, movie being sold to TV will never happen for games being sold to similar outlet. Can you imagine if on Feb 12-20 you could log into Steam/PSN/XBLA and play Assassin's Creed 1&2 with commercial breaks worked in? Completely free though... well, for PS3 and Steam users.

Finally, games aren't forgotten after a few months, the press just has to roll with the times. Also, games entertainment time is irrelevant when discussing cost vs. revenue and we are also in a time when fans are complaining games are getting shorter thanks to voiced dialogue and graphics technology.

Modern warfare cost more than that.

More than what? Right now, MW3 has a bogus number of $200m floating out there that can't be justified. Considering it used the same engine and recycled assets from previous CoD games what exactly did they spend $200m on? Again, don't believe everything you read. The fact is no one can say where this number comes from other than Activision's mouth. Google "Hollywood accounting."
It is the reason that there is no Forrest Gump sequel. Hollywood claims that Forrest Gump didn't make ANY money, but rather took a loss. All so that they didn't have to pay the creator more than $200,000. Companies will lie on their books. MW3 probably cost between 50-60 million considering that is what MW2 and MW:BO cost also using the same engine and not recycling previous assets.

If you include building the engine bf3 probably cost more that too.

First, if they made a new engine for the game you can guarantee they ain't going to NOT include that in their budget. They try to include everything they can in a budget. So far, it has been proposed Battelfield 3's budget is around $100m. Considering that game devs constantly try to lease out engine rights from other devs, there is a good chance that a sizable chunk of that 100m went for the engine.

And aside from those points films have 3 (4) forms of income. Ticket sales, television repeats, dvd/blu ray sales(the 4th is merchandise but thats only SOME films).

And comparing it to movies is a bit silly given the entirety of a film experience is 2-3 hours, a full price game is expected to be 3 times more than that. So the price should be higher.

Bear in mind i don't think all games should be at the pricepoint they are, but solid long well made games deserve that high price point.

I already covered these points a couple times already in this thread as well as in this same post. In regards to your last sentence, that is a matter of opinion. You may think it deserves it but someone else may not. The market is made up of a lot of someone elses. You forget that I am arguing that reducing the price will actually make MORE money through volume. Just because I think the Mass Effect trilogy is worth $200 doesn't mean the market thinks that.
Wal-mart has proven year after year that volume generates sales. All of us buying it at $60 WILL also buy it at $40. However, now you have to consider how many other people will get on board at $40.

Assume the casual player for a moment. This generation alone has proven they outnumber us in the market. Look at all the Wii sales and sales on crap Wii games by people who are a bit ignorant about the game industry. The fact is more sub-par games exist than good one across ALL platforms so the chance of you buying a shitty game for $60 is higher than the chance of you buying a good one. Considering casuals are drawn to movie based games and other pop culture games, they get burned a lot. They are attracted by the deceptive marketing that is known as shovelware. When people buy shitty games for $60, they tend to get a bit more skeptical of how much games are worth in general. Now imagine this casual gamer has kids. At $60 a pop they can pretty much only afford the games their kids want. Granted going to the movies with a family of 4 will cost you $40-50, you can split up and meet back together after the movie and everyone gets to see what they want. With games it is $60 and everybody better freakin' like it. If that price point were to lower maybe mom and dad will shop for a game they want while Billy looks for one he wants. As is, Billy gets the game and Mom and Dad, the responsible people with the wallet, opt out of getting anything they can't afford. If they were $40, suddenly two games is only $80 and not $120. More people would be a bit less tight with their checkbook.

I bet if you look real hard in the subtext of that, you can find why games have the stigma of "for kids". Their too damn expensive for an adult who hasn't experienced games much to try without depriving their kids of Mario.

 

[Zantos]

"better games retain higher prices and poor games quickly drop" except COD which is still about £40 for MW2?

I really want to know where you're getting games from, I cannot find MW2 for more than half of that.

 

[Batou667]

I'm speaking from the perspective of somebody from the UK, and I think game pricing is just right the way it is.

Back in the early 90's I had a Sega Megadrive. Games were £40 at launch. I now own an Xbox 360, and games cost £40 at launch, and if you know where to look you can usually find some store that is selling even cheaper to undercut competitors. I can't think of any other luxury product that has remained constant in price for 20 years. Sure, DLC has become a bit of a stealth-tax, but the used games market is the best it's ever been.

tl;dr: The price of games is fine, don't knock it!

 

[esperandote]

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 think they would know better wich areas are more likely to reduce costs but if you want ME to say where they could reduce costs then:

Stop spending so much in advertising.
Stop trying to make incredibly advanced graphics, with good graphics and gameplay i think most gamers would be satisfied.

Your ideas suck even more anyway.

 

[Bvenged]

£30-£35 release would encourage me and a lot of others to buy all the games we want new, instead of one or two at a time then waiting ages. It would also give me more financial freedom to download extra content. The current price-frame turns me off of pre-ordering and away from most available downloadable contents. Also, publishers and retailers need to understand that not all new games are actually worth "full price". Gaming is becoming more and more mainstream, but it can't go on at the price it's at. It's just too damn steep for most people yet developers keep on growing in size and spewing out more and more games.

If Orange Wednesdays didn't exist/cinema tickets cost full evening weekend price 24/7 for the first 2 months a film was out, you wouldn't go as often, thus spend not nearly as much in that industry overall, right?
The games industry at the moment appears to be trying to bolster profits, steam-roll competitors, destroy physical retailers and the used game market; and is going about anti-piracy in a controversially wrong way. It just can't keep it up and the growing hate is there. You rarely find a good publication on publishers these days [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&gl=uk&tbm=nws&q=game+publishers&oq=game+publishers&aq=f&aqi=d1d-o1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2915l4922l0l5170l17l13l0l10l0l1l589l889l3-1.0.1l2l0] anyway.

They're getting it wrong. They need to have their customers in the forefront of their businesses, not their bank accounts; and I say this because the impression I'm getting at the moment is I'm just a source of income to them. With all these unconventional game-codes; shovelware DLC, disc-locked content, half-arsed work, overpriced digital distribution and just the general feeling of crap service; it really is a shame I keep buying their games. But like I've said. If they change it to consider what the consumers want more; consumers will spend more and they don't have to keep trying these annoying, unserviceable tactics to get us to pay out more. They just have to be a better service than physical retailers, a better service of entertainment than music or film, a better anything. They do that and I will be satisfied, probably also spending more on them for their excellent, affordable services. When I see "Online Pass", "Disc-locked content", "Only on Origin" (£45) it makes my blood boil and I wan't nothing to do with it. And I'm about as hardcore a gamer you can get. Anyone in the game making business should listen to Todd Howard's DICE Summit Keynote [http://www.bethblog.com/2012/02/08/watch-todd-howards-dice-keynote-live-on-gamespot/]: It highlights everything a good developer should do; and basically if they're not doing it, they're cheating the consumer but most importantly, themselves.

All it takes is a little more push, and I swear consumer confidence in the games industry will drop like a stone down a well - we're not far off replicating the conditions of the industry crash of '82 [http://www.thedoteaters.com/p3_stage6.php]. But it's not too late for the industry to turn itself around, Todd's given a means of approach by the developers and a bit for publishers, and the Steam business model and Jim Sterling's critical analysis videos on the industry (Jimquisition) should be heeded by the publishers in a fantastic way to improve business for themselves, and us.

TL;DR Yeah they're extortionate, more people are gaming than ever before so why are the prices not dropping? Digital distribution cut manufacture and retailer costs, so why are we still paying the same. I'm buying far less games on release at full price, because full-price is just not applicable or worthy for games I've never heard of/don't have the utmost interest in/ simply cannot afford. The price needs to come down, not all games are worth it on release, even if they are 7Gb big, and DLC needs to be an inkling cheaper too to draw people in; once again, not like they'd lose money out of it. the industries growing and yet it feels like it's still pushing for higher profits margins.

 

[II Scarecrow II]

On topic now. I really wish we could see a change in the pricing, or at the very least a drop in the prices. As I stated above, it is $100 for a new game here in Australia, even though our dollar is now above parity with the USD, as the cost of living is higher. There are a huge number of gamers now, and I think a drop in the prices of games could lead to a massive increase in game purchases, which is profitable for the companies and cheaper for us. A simple rule of thumb with pricing is:
High Cost --> Low Sales
Low Cost --> High Sales

Good, a fellow Australian.

Hell, I'm lucky if a new (As in, the game was released less than TWO FUCKING YEARS ago) release for the 360 is less than $120. Even Steam occasionally fucks us Aussies over (Think you're hard done by having to pay $60 for Skyrim? Our "special" was $85)

So, Scarecrow, consider your point backed - vehemently - by me.

Agreed. I can STILL find a copy of MW2 sitting on the shelf for $60, even after TWO sequels have come out. And Mass Effect 3 is retailing for $130 at the moment.

And for the people that say the minimum wage is twice as high here, that is true. But when you consider that a lot of people targeted by games are kids and teenagers - or uni students like me - not all of these people earn wages at all. The reason I was getting riled up was because this person was suggesting that simply because we do not all have the money to buy a new game on release day and are forced to buy it used, we are the scum of the earth. I just found that post to be horribly misinformed.

 

[Aprilgold]

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.

Isn't it Gamestop's fault that my money isn't getting to the developer if I buy used? Yes, because if I bought one used game and someone pirated the same one 90 times then I am worse then the person that pirated it 90 times. My point is that I am not a worse person for buying a used game, that may or may not work, and someone who can infinetly pirate a game. Which one is losing more money, a 15$ used game, which then goes to support the store, or someone who pirates a game infinetely. So should I not support the store so they go under so I can't buy from them anymore or should I just pirate the game and not support either.

 

[Murmillos]

Isn't it Gamestop's fault that my money isn't getting to the developer if I buy used? Yes, because if I bought one used game and someone pirated the same one 90 times then I am worse then the person that pirated it 90 times. My point is that I am not a worse person for buying a used game, that may or may not work, and someone who can infinetly pirate a game. Which one is losing more money, a 15$ used game, which then goes to support the store, or someone who pirates a game infinetely. So should I not support the store so they go under so I can't buy from them anymore or should I just pirate the game and not support either.

I'm still trying to understand why somebody would pirate a game 90 times; unless they are trying to skew the results...

Ok.. but then why buy used, saving just a few bucks and only supporting the store in the process, when you could just dig a bit deeper and support the developer, publisher, supplier & the store? Are you saying the the store more important then the other 3, especially the developer?

Again, my argument is that the developer are not getting their money (and in many cases, the requirement that the publisher earns its money it spent backing the game before any profits or additional bonus/money for future projects go to the developer). Used game sales only got to maximizing the stores own bottom line.

At least pirates can pretend to say "I love your game but don't have the money to buy it" or "I'm only doing this to demo your game - but if I even remotely like it, I will buy it."

 

[StriderShinryu]

Isn't it Gamestop's fault that my money isn't getting to the developer if I buy used? Yes, because if I bought one used game and someone pirated the same one 90 times then I am worse then the person that pirated it 90 times. My point is that I am not a worse person for buying a used game, that may or may not work, and someone who can infinetly pirate a game. Which one is losing more money, a 15$ used game, which then goes to support the store, or someone who pirates a game infinetely. So should I not support the store so they go under so I can't buy from them anymore or should I just pirate the game and not support either.

I'm still trying to understand why somebody would pirate a game 90 times; unless they are trying to skew the results...

Ok.. but then why buy used, saving just a few bucks and only supporting the store in the process, when you could just dig a bit deeper and support the developer, publisher, supplier & the store? Are you saying the the store more important then the other 3, especially the developer?

Again, my argument is that the developer are not getting their money (and in many cases, the requirement that the publisher earns its money it spent backing the game before any profits or additional bonus/money for future projects go to the developer). Used game sales only got to maximizing the stores own bottom line.

At least pirates can pretend to say "I love your game but don't have the money to buy it" or "I'm only doing this to demo your game - but if I even remotely like it, I will buy it."

I'd guess the point is that, when dealing with a used copy of a game, you're still dealing with one finite copy. GameStop can rebuy and resell that one copy infinitely as long as there's still demand for it, but once they've sold said copy they can't sell it again until someone bring it back to them for a trade in. With a pirated copy, however, there is no finite number. It's not that one person will download the same game 90 times, but more that 90 different people can.. or 9000 or 9000000. There's also the fact that, in some cases, pirated copies originate as leaked or stolen code so even though 9000000 people may pirate the game, there isn't ever a guarantee that there ever was an original sale in the first place.

 

[370999]

I'm a remorsless consumer so I want games to be as cheap as possible. Ideally they would be free but obviously that isn't the system. However should the industry change it's pricing habits? Possibly. We are steadily inching more and more towards total digital distribution (which I hate) so obviouls games will have to look at pricing in terms of that. I do think a more concrete process of lowering the price of a game over time might be a goood idea though I always understand the value of sales and the like.

 

[UrieHusky]

In america, people pay 60 dollars for a new release which I find to be completely reasonable for how high quality games are these days (Mario games used to be up to 80 dollars guys)
But in NZ we're paying 120+ for new releases which is insane, it's actually cheaper for me to import games from america, including shipping costs..

So in Australia and New Zealand (NZ has it worse then Australia but it's still quite bad there), yeah I think game prices need fixing but for america and the UK, 60 dollars is completely fair


That's my opinion on the matter

 

[Jingle Fett]

Isn't it Gamestop's fault that my money isn't getting to the developer if I buy used? Yes, because if I bought one used game and someone pirated the same one 90 times then I am worse then the person that pirated it 90 times. My point is that I am not a worse person for buying a used game, that may or may not work, and someone who can infinetly pirate a game. Which one is losing more money, a 15$ used game, which then goes to support the store, or someone who pirates a game infinetely. So should I not support the store so they go under so I can't buy from them anymore or should I just pirate the game and not support either.

I'm still trying to understand why somebody would pirate a game 90 times; unless they are trying to skew the results...

Ok.. but then why buy used, saving just a few bucks and only supporting the store in the process, when you could just dig a bit deeper and support the developer, publisher, supplier & the store? Are you saying the the store more important then the other 3, especially the developer?

Again, my argument is that the developer are not getting their money (and in many cases, the requirement that the publisher earns its money it spent backing the game before any profits or additional bonus/money for future projects go to the developer). Used game sales only got to maximizing the stores own bottom line.

At least pirates can pretend to say "I love your game but don't have the money to buy it" or "I'm only doing this to demo your game - but if I even remotely like it, I will buy it."

I'm just going to butt in here for a second...You're saying the game developers should get money from the used sales. But here's the thing you're missing. They already got their money. They already got $60 (or however much they made) from the original new sale. They don't deserve anything more than that. Anything that happens to that copy of the game afterwards is irrelevant. It can be destroyed, burned, whatever but they already got their money from it. They're not losing money from it. That original copy of the game was bought and paid for in full.

If someone sells their game and later decide they want it again, they have to buy a new copy. They don't just get it back. In the end, only one person owns the used copy of the game at any one time. That's the key distinction everybody is missing when they complain about used sales (especially the publishers). The only way the developers can conceivably lose money is if when the person sells the used game, they made a copy of it beforehand (ie piracy).

The idea that game developers lose money due to used games is completely false.They already got their money. If more people are buying the game used than new, it means the people who buy it new don't have much incentive to keep the game (thus selling it to regain money). In that case, the developers should be asking why people want to get rid of their game.

Another way to put it, if there are 100 copies of a game in circulation, all of them have been bought and paid for at full price. Now those copies can trade hands as much as wanted but the developer still only deserves money for those original 100 copies. Nothing more or less. If it's $60 a game, that's $6000. The developers don't deserve any more money than those $6000, no matter how many people play it.

Again, they already got that money

If they want more money, they have to sell more new original copies. If they want to do that, they need to figure out how to make their game worth keeping.

 

[Niccolo]

Agreed. I can STILL find a copy of MW2 sitting on the shelf for $60, even after TWO sequels have come out. And Mass Effect 3 is retailing for $130 at the moment.

And for the people that say the minimum wage is twice as high here, that is true. But when you consider that a lot of people targeted by games are kids and teenagers - or uni students like me - not all of these people earn wages at all. The reason I was getting riled up was because this person was suggesting that simply because we do not all have the money to buy a new game on release day and are forced to buy it used, we are the scum of the earth. I just found that post to be horribly misinformed.

Hey, you don't have to justify getting riled up to me - his post annoyed me just as much. You just said everything I would have said (and in a more eloquent manner, too).

To everyone else: Stop feeding the goddamn troll.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

Those numbers are largely crap, though. I have books from the 80s, and you could get a children's book for 5 bucks, but that's about it. I'm yet to see a 12 dollar movie ticket, let alone twenty, so I'm a touche skeptical. I don't even pay 12 bucks for 3D movies.

TV service is pretty loaded, considering they have expanded both infrastructure and service disproportionate to anything video games have done.

Meanwhile, Compact Discs cost less than vinyl. My dad, in 88-89 was buying records at 25 in department/box stores. That was post-price fixing scandal, too. Many CDs have a MSRP of 15 bucks, while the high end still doesn't touch 25 dollars. Movies? Theater prices may have risen, but video costs certainly haven't. Can't speak to an off-broadway plays in 1989, though.

I know you offered a disclaimer, but that's pretty ridiculous anyway.

 

[II Scarecrow II]

Isn't it Gamestop's fault that my money isn't getting to the developer if I buy used? Yes, because if I bought one used game and someone pirated the same one 90 times then I am worse then the person that pirated it 90 times. My point is that I am not a worse person for buying a used game, that may or may not work, and someone who can infinetly pirate a game. Which one is losing more money, a 15$ used game, which then goes to support the store, or someone who pirates a game infinetely. So should I not support the store so they go under so I can't buy from them anymore or should I just pirate the game and not support either.

I'm still trying to understand why somebody would pirate a game 90 times; unless they are trying to skew the results...

Ok.. but then why buy used, saving just a few bucks and only supporting the store in the process, when you could just dig a bit deeper and support the developer, publisher, supplier & the store? Are you saying the the store more important then the other 3, especially the developer?

Again, my argument is that the developer are not getting their money (and in many cases, the requirement that the publisher earns its money it spent backing the game before any profits or additional bonus/money for future projects go to the developer). Used game sales only got to maximizing the stores own bottom line.

At least pirates can pretend to say "I love your game but don't have the money to buy it" or "I'm only doing this to demo your game - but if I even remotely like it, I will buy it."

*Refer to previous comment about misguided intelligence*

You're telling me that pirating a game is so much better because they argue "Your game is great, I just don't have the money" and you consider that a fair argument?? While I understand that pirating does not equal stealing, you're suggesting that because I don't have the money, it is far better to steal something rather than pay a lower price for a used version where at least SOMEONE gets money?? Going back to my car analogy, you think it is better for someone to steal a new car rather than buy a used car because none of that money goes to the maker anyway??

And how many pirates do you think actually go and buy a game because they think they should support the developers. The numbers aren't very high let me assure you. So, there can be no way that in any version of your twisted reality that piracy is in some way morally more acceptable than used games. As I stated previously, at least the money from used games goes into the store and its staff, allowing them to purchase and sell to you those shiny new games you like so much.

While I understand that people are entitled to their own opinions on the internet, which I can respect, in this situation mate, YOU ARE WRONG.

Now, I am going to leave this thread before I get banned for going on another rant against you. Good day sir, and I hope one day there is a cure for whatever condition you have.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Well I'm in Australia, so I get 2nd hand games over eBay at about the same price as the US gets new games at release. Even here, where PS3 games were a round hundred at the start, slowly they crept to 109 and then 115 and now 119 dollars for a new game (which is f***ing ridiculous, and don't get me started on bloody collector's editions).

But no, I don't think pricing should be fixed. It's capitalism at it's finest. What we really, really need are less gullible idiots, and more willingness to not buy a game due to pricing. We're being milked over here, and same in America (but to a lesser extent) because people buy the damn games anyway. We need a large portion of the market to say "You know what? Fuck 120 dollars for a new game, I'm waiting until it goes down in price. And if it doesn't, the publisher gets not a dime of my money." That's how the market works. We can't, and shouldn't, force publishers to sell at lower prices. We can, and should, drive them to that conclusion ourselves by not putting up with their BS.

This is (braces for slings and arrows) where certain kinds of piracy are good overall, imo. We need principled pirates who will pirate games to hurt the company, but who will pay a respectable price for it. Unfortunately this isn't how it works because there are plenty of others who will pirate the game anyway because they're scum.

In conclusion, we shouldn't be able to regulate game pricing, we should take action, but it will fail because of the sheer amount of people who will just fucking pay anything for the latest CoD.

 

[Murmillos]

Going back to my car analogy...

How's those digital download cars working out for you? Wheels and bumpers are day-one DLC right?