Pricing relative to Content

[Bakery]

I'm going to keep this as short and sweet as possible.

I'm going to classify two kinds of games. The first kind of game is simple, points based, very few controls, simple graphics, incredibly addictive and can be played by people of all ages. Let's call this kind of game 'Casual'. The other kind of game, which we'll classify as 'Hardcore', has an in depth story, highest quality graphics, complex game play elements, is very difficult and is really only enjoyed by dedicated gamers.

'Casual' games are much cheaper to develop then 'Hardcore' games and yet they can sell just as many copies. 'Casual' games can be enjoyed my a much wider audience, this obviously means more sales. Cheaper development also means that developers can make more games and thereby sell more.

It would seem that there's more money in 'Casual' games for developers.

The result of this: 'Hardcore' games becoming shorter in length, with more poorly written stories, stacks of bugs, rough edges and an all round less 'Hardcore' feeling.

My idea is for a solution that would fix the problem of the declining quality of 'Hardcore' games and the developer's need for money. Developers should make games of a higher quality and sell them at a price proportional to content.

If stories were drafted, written, re-written, perfected,
If characters were interesting, believable and properly acted,
If gameplay was refined and perfectly balanced,
If graphics were polished, buffed and shined 'til you could see yourself,
If corners weren't cut but instead the scenic route was taken,
If bugs were squashed and ironed out 'til almost none remain,
If you were guaranteed 60+ hours of storyline on your first playthrough,
Would you pay $250? I sure as hell would.

Opinions?

**note that in Australia, due to the "having the nicest beaches" tax, we pay $100 for brand new games**

 

[moeroris]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: first off, there's no cost to many of the things you list. Story and characters exist in your head before they exist in the game. Unless there's a thought tax I'm not aware of, it costs nothing to refine that in your head for as long as you need. Heck, let's say you need to refine it on paper. That sets you back, what... we'll say $100 worth of looseleaf? That should get you about 20,000 sheets of paper.

Most balance problems don't come from something in the coding, like a bug or a glitch, but something fundamentally wrong in the design. And you can resolve that free of charge by planning out things in your head (or on paper) before you begin making the game.

Also: a game being "cheap" is no excuse for it having a ton of bugs. Do it right or don't do it at all.

So basically I'm left paying $150 for top-tier graphics and a long story. Hell, I loved games like Double Dragon for the SNES that had terrible graphics and no story. A game shouldn't need you to take out a loan for a new graphics card in order to be fun. As for corners being cut, a large part of that is due to the cost of trying to produce those "polished, buffed, and shined" graphics in the first place.

And while there are some games I wish were longer, I generally find by the time we get to the end the developer has completely run out of ideas and am glad to see it end.

No disrespect intended to the O.P.

 

[Novajam]

If you were guaranteed 60+ hours of storyline on your first playthrough,
Would you pay $250? I sure as hell would.

I would NOT pay $250 for a new game. Furthermore, check yourself into the nearest hospital. Your thinking is a danger to those nearby you.

I think games would be a lot better if developers avoided the usual development pitfalls. A good example of this is voice actors. Oblivion had about 6 voice actors, and one of those didn't have any more lines after the emperor got bumped off.

The solution is don't blow half the budget on one character. Hire many, cheaper actors.

 

[Bakery]

Also: a game being "cheap" is no excuse for it having a ton of bugs. Do it right or don't do it at all.

A week spent on bug testing or two weeks spent on bug testing, which would remove more bugs? And last I checked, you DO have to pay writers and designers for a game.

I would NOT pay $250 for a new game.

One initial problem that i thought to myself.

Beleive it or not we pretty much already are paying this much for games. I clocked Metroid Prime: Corruption in just over 20 hours on my first playthrough while the original Metroid Prime took me a good 40 hours. I finished Force Unleashed in under 8 hours as well as Assasin's Creed. Games are dropping in length and quality.

 

[Novajam]

I would NOT pay $250 for a new game.

One initial problem that i thought to myself.

Believe it or not we pretty much already are paying this much for games. I clocked Metroid Prime: Corruption in just over 20 hours on my first playthrough while the original Metroid Prime took me a good 40 hours. I finished Force Unleashed in under 8 hours as well as Assassin's Creed. Games are dropping in length and quality.

Exactly. I bought Call of Duty 4 about a month or two ago, and it cost me the same as when it was a new release. Only took about eight hours to beat.

Though this might be a problem of games becoming easier, not intentionally shorter.

 

[Bullett]

No.

If you price something too high no-one will buy it or you will limit the market to such an extent that insufficient people will buy. The price of games is about right, I don't think you can say game x is better than y because it is longer the quality of a game has many factors, enjoyment is most important for me. I loved Portal but it's short. I didn't like Stalker (much longer) so even paying the same price, to me Portal is better value.

You will never get a game bug free, I work in commercial software we are still finding bugs in software that was initially released 10 years ago. You do the best you can in the time you have.

Gaming is a business - you have to make a profit to stay in business. You are going to have to make a balance between how long debugging take and how broken the game is after that time. Delay the release or spend more on debugging eats into profits. You could try selling it for more money but average joe is not going to buy a game thats 50% more expensive.

Finally I think 8-10 hours is about right for a game single player. I'd rather have a short good game that reaches a conclusion than a long game that rambles on with filler content.

Moe - everything costs money, story - writter, editor, project managers, developers artists all need paying. Just developing the game on paper could take months.

 

[Logan Keller]

Also: a game being "cheap" is no excuse for it having a ton of bugs. Do it right or don't do it at all.

A week spent on bug testing or two weeks spent on bug testing, which would remove more bugs? And last I checked, you DO have to pay writers and designers for a game.

Not everything can be made better by having more time spent on it and you could pay people on a commission type thing and pay them based on the quality of work etc.

 

[Theo Samaritan]

Gaming is a business - you have to make a profit to stay in business. You are going to have to make a balance between how long debugging take and how broken the game is after that time. Delay the release or spend more on debugging eats into profits. You could try selling it for more money but average joe is not going to buy a game thats 50% more expensive.

Work for EA by any chance?

While I agree the average Joe isn't going to pay anymore for their games, I disagree that spending a decent amount of time debugging eats into profits. If anything having a game that works 90% of the time is better than one that works 40% of the time (looking at you, Mercs 2).

If EA didn't rush them for release, hell even delayed the game for only a month, I can bet my left testical that it would have less game-killing bugs in it, and thus more sales due to less negative feedback.

Unfortunatly the game-killing bugs are beginning to impact the stores rather than the publishers. As soon as stock is bought it is bought, if people bring it back for a refund they have to try and re-sell, quite often they have to do that second hand and while over time this makes a profit, for a new release the cheaper price is a loss.

It takes longer for the publishers to feel the effect of this as it is a few weeks/months before they realise they are shipping less.