Poll: It is Time to Fix Game Prices

[DrgoFx]

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.

 

[everythingbeeps]

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.

 

[GoaThief]

Section 8 didn't retail for $60 anyway, did it?

As per the above poster, what is it with everyone being so cheap? Gaming is a luxury not a right, sometimes you can't have everything... this developing mindset is disturbing.

 

[Kahunaburger]

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.

 

[Shock and Awe]

Who fixes it? The Government? The Industry? Its fine how it is, better games retain higher prices and poor games quickly drop, thats how capitalism works my good man. All price fixing would do is make things more complicated than they need to be.

 

[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.

 

[Erttheking]

Personally I think it's fine the way that it is.

 

[Windcaler]

One of the key principles of economics is charging what the market can bear for your product. We saw this with consoles this generation where Microsoft and Sony had to take a loss to get their product to sell and I suspect we will see it in the next generation too. The question in my mind is: is the full $60 what the market can bear every time? I would say not. $60 is a lot of money to some people and its nothing to others but with the current state of the US economy I have my doubts to whether even $40 is what the market can bear at this time.

So yes, I agree to a point. I believe for the US economy as is $60 is a bit to much. $40 or $50 seems far more acceptable to me and we get that with the first markdown that happens within 3-6 months after release. That said, I still buy new but I usually wait those several months for the first markdown.

I wish I had the ability to give more money to the developers, and I wish more developers were also publishers but the state of the world just doesnt allow me to do that right now

 

[everythingbeeps]

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.

Oh hey, I can cherry pick numbers and invent logic too!

My favorite movie is 2 hours long. At your prices, we'll call that $30.

I played Skyrim for 140 hours. My fancy logic says that Skyrim should cost $2100!

 

[tippy2k2]

I said this in a post yesterday and I think copy/paste will work just fine here.

Basically, you would be forcing a company to say "We have no faith in this product, we'll sell it at $40", which no publisher would be willing to do. The market dictates how much these games cost, so the games that are not so good (see Homefront, Enslaved, Force Unleashed 2, etc.) drop in price fairly quickly. Games that are great continue to stay high because people are willing to pay it (see Call of Duty, Halo, Madden, etc.) These eventually stay in the high range until either a sequel hits or a good chunk of time has gone by.

 

[esperandote]

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

 

[TornadoFive]

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.

Without a source, I'm slightly sceptical of your data, but even assuming it's true, there's one big factor you've overlooked. A lot more people watch films than play games.

With a film, the only thing between you and it is the cinema ticket (or DVD cost). A game requires a console or a decent PC, and a much bigger time investment.

Smaller target audience = higher prices charged as developers/publishers attempt to make their money back.

 

[Phlakes]

The price is definitely too high right now. When the price becomes an obstacle for a majority of your audience (very few people miss out on a movie because they can't afford a ticket), something is very, very wrong. It's almost like a monopoly- games are still a young industry, so there's no baseline to compare it to. We're probably creating itt right now. And that's not a good thing.

 

[babinro]

Yes.

I understand asking a company to cut costs for prices is not a realistic way to get people to buy games in a new generation. Face it...if your brand new PS4 only played games with the quality of Thor because of lack of funding, gaming would pretty much come to an end. <I realize this example isn't fully accurate but major companies hardly adapt to drastic change easily>

In terms of possible solutions I'd recommend:

1) Make all games available digitally. Use a pricing structure similar to Steam where people can pay $60 for a day one release, but likely save 25-33% or more by simply waiting 2 months.

2) Break up the cost of games in terms of single Player and multiplayer as is appropriate to the title. COD for example could cost $15 for single player, and $45 for multiplayer. Mass Effect 3 would be the opposite.

3) Enable mass marketing in games. Want to play COD 5? Enjoy watching a McDonald's commercial during boot up, along with weight loss commercials during loading screens. I don't want to see this happen, but I'm sure it's just a matter of time.

 

[Vault101]

Im going to cheat and paste what I said on another thread

if I want a game then it is worth full price to me, I have no problem paying that

but it just seems thease people are like young kids throwing tantrums because they dont get their way..well TOUGH I dont pirate, I pay for my shit new or used (and I pay very well thankyouverymuch) Ive given plenty of money to the publishers so if they want to start telling me I cant buy used games or I have to jump through hoops and max out my internet cap to play their fucking game then I will simply say

"fuck you....no seriously, fuck you"

 

[omega 616]

Who fixes it? The Government? The Industry? Its fine how it is, better games retain higher prices and poor games quickly drop, thats how capitalism works my good man. All price fixing would do is make things more complicated than they need to be.

Easy up there!

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

Popular games retain a higher price, not better.

On topic. This is just a crazy idea. Effectively saying "this game is good/crap" based on price. Who even defines what good is? It's all opinions, some people will love a game others hate.

We can't leave it up to the public 'cos there are a lot of stupid people out there, "this games bad 'cos the graphics suck" ... "I can't quick scope it's shit" ... "this isn't even an shooter it's gay", can we really trust these people to price our games?

Devs and publishers aren't going to slap a low price on it 'cos that would be advertising how bad the game is.

The government have already proven they have no clue about games so they should never fix a price.

Sorry but it's a no from me.

 

[FrostyChick]

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.

The only current reason we are still paying $60 for games is that brick and mortar retailers need their cut, and they have the market influence to extort publishers into raising the prices on digital distribution.

Besides, games are luxury items. If you can't afford them, too bad. That's capitalism for you.

 

[Steppin Razor]

"Fix" gaming prices? Fix one of the few things that seems to be staying at about the same level for years upon years upon years? Yeah, good luck with that. While you sit there bitching about games costing too much, I'll be over here paying the same price I was five years ago.