Poll: It is Time to Fix Game Prices
- Thread starter DrgoFx
- Start date
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.
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
You called.Kahunaburger said: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.FrostyChick said:
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.
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
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
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.Aprilgold said:
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.
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.Zachary Amaranth said:
...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.
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.Treblaine said:
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.
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.
One acronym: ROM2xDouble said:
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.
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.
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.
No TV is worth $100 per month, especially as a minimum. Doubly considering the much lower cost of internet + netflix + hulu etc.2xDouble said:
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.
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.)Aurgelmir said:
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.
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.
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."bahumat42 said:
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!