The Price of Fun

[neispace]

This is one area that I feel very fortunate. The latest game I purchased in stores was Battlefield 2 for $5 in the United States. It wasn't too long ago that BF2 was one of the most popular online FPS games for the PC. I got it for a bargain.

Of course, I suppose most people are concerned about console video game prices instead of PC game prices, so maybe my positive experiences are irrelevant. But then again, I stopped buying console video games half a dozen years ago for precisely this reason. Why spend so much money on video games (and the console system to play those games) when a PC you need anyways can play games that cost $5 or less and are just as fun?

Because developers can't make money off of 5 buck games. And that means the market gets flooded with old stuff, or crap. The only reason you could get it for that cheap was because in the far past, people paid full price for it at retail.

You are like a person who shops at the goodwill. Your savings is subsidized mainly by other people. Without those other people, you wont have goods to purchase.

That's what's bs about this whole article. Lowering prices will not benefit the consumer, because developers will lower the time and money investment they put into games. If halo 4 is 29.99, don't expect to see clan support or the forge. There's no sense in making resident evil 5 for the 360 when its ten times cheaper to make it for the wii, and you have to charge the same price anyways.

Lower the prices, lower the expectations. Everyone loves to ***** about the wii, but most wii games are 10 dollars cheaper or more than comparable next-gen games. And in the end, if you have two games both in the bargain bin for twenty bucks, your company will be in much better shape fiscally if its something like de blob as opposed to the darkness, or mass effect.

 

[Old Man Neck]

That is the reason why I personally love Steam. It has a stupid amount of discounts and sales which can really help in getting the most games for your money. Like today, I got Assassin's Creed for $10. Also, it eliminates running from store to store to find a copy of an old game. One thing I hate though, and a problem with the falling value thing, is that it rips off people that got the game at full cost. I remember when I bought Bioshock for something like $40 dollars. A few months later its $20. Even then, its not enough. During the Steam Holiday Sale, it was $5. So if the value constantly dropped, people would start to catch on and realize it is cheaper to just wait a few months for the cost to go down, and that could slow down sales.

 

[KDR_11k]

I'm just wondering where all this money that gets spent on developing a game goes. Because they're claiming their costs are rising but I'm not seeing any increase in quality. In fact most pc games these days are rehashed, buggy, console ports or are simply dreadful. So it would seem to me that developers aren't getting their money's worth when it comes to development costs because the games are getting worse and the prices are rising.

Graphics and other assets. That stuff is expensive to make, VERY expensive. You're looking at man-months for characters that previously took man-weeks. The graphics can handle a ton more detail and all that detail has to be made by someone and that someone has to be paid and... Doesn't help that more detailled worlds not only need more detail per object but also more objects per area and more variations per object. Whereas in the old days an FPS could make a battlefield out of a square room and some cubes with a crate texture now you need all kinds of realistic debries to create a believable world.

Also the PC is no longer the main platform because it's not profitable enough, maybe in part because game prices are lower.

That's what's bs about this whole article. Lowering prices will not benefit the consumer, because developers will lower the time and money investment they put into games. If halo 4 is 29.99, don't expect to see clan support or the forge. There's no sense in making resident evil 5 for the 360 when its ten times cheaper to make it for the wii, and you have to charge the same price anyways.

Lower the prices, lower the expectations. Everyone loves to ***** about the wii, but most wii games are 10 dollars cheaper or more than comparable next-gen games. And in the end, if you have two games both in the bargain bin for twenty bucks, your company will be in much better shape fiscally if its something like de blob as opposed to the darkness, or mass effect.

Nonsense, games cost very little per unit. It doesn't matter how great or bad the game is, one copy always takes a few cents plus retailer overhead to make and the rest is profit. The total profit has to be greater than the dev budget of course if you want to make a profit on the development but you want to maximize your profit anyway so the cost doesn't matter (sunken cost, it's spent, it doesn't matter anymore, just get as much profit as you can).

As for the RE5 commet, well, yeah, that's what everybody's been saying, there's no real point in making games for the HD consoles anymore. It's bad business to make an HD game because they cost so much that the profit won't be very large compared to the investment and risk. Yet most publishers don't want to accept that truth and instead keep running into the same old trap in the quest for prestige or whatever it is they're looking for while the gaming news industry cheers about "pushing the envelope" and "rivalling Hollywood". The result? Bankrupcies, downsizings, massive losses. They just repeat some nonsense about Wii software not selling but NPD doesn't confirm that, if anything it's the PS3 software that doesn't sell but you don't see people talking about cutting support for that thing. Me, I welcome that particular apocalypse, I've subsisted mostly on downloadable games for quite some time so the idea of more focus on smaller, cheaper games appeals to me.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Yea the prices have steadily gone up but so has the quality (in most cases) so there's little to complain about. It's not like the NYC subway system that gets steadily more expensive while service gets worse.

That said, I hardly ever buy games for their new release price. Until gamestop bought out the other game-specific retailers you could get used games for a decent price without going online but nowadays I get most of my used games through amazon.

 

[Illesdan]

This is why I don't own a PS3, XBox 360 or a Nintendo Wii. It's complete rubbish to ask people to dole out that kind of money when the games are criminally short, non-challenging, and the storyboards might as well have been written by fifth graders trippin' on acid.

I have all the games I want on my PS2. Nothing, NOT ONE DAMNED THING has come out for any one of the new gen systems that has made my heart race or made me go 'Damn, I gotta buy a system to play THAT game...'

I still consider myself a gamer, but seriously, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. I'm married, and my wife has been out of work since last summer. We get by alright on what I make, but we have turned to online games for our fix when we get tired of the PS2. It's turned out to be alot cheaper than trying to buy a new console. Might I add, I've seen USED CARS in the local paper going for less than a USED gaming system. In my eyes, that's just kinda... wrong.

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

They charge 50-60 bucks for a game simply... because. Whenever I read some interview in a gaming magazine with a Sony or MS rep talking about how "Rising development costs are driving game prices higher," I get really mad. Any first year economic student will tell you that the development cost of software doesn't factor into the selling price. People pay $5 to see a $100 million dollar movie; there is no bean-counter behind the scenes saying they need to sell X tickets for Y dollars to break even. It's a whole different balance sheet.

So when they say next gen games cost more to make thus they are higher priced, that is complete bullshit. They are lying through their lying liar teeth.

Honestly, I think if they priced every game $20-30 they'd sell three times as many. How many people do you know with a mountain of $15-20 DVDs they bought on a whim? If a game didn't represent such an "investment" to the buyer, they would debate a lot less about which ones they buy.

See, that's what I always thought too! yet I don't want to succumb to that annoying thing our brain does called "The historians fallacy" where we all go "If it was me, the PS3 would be priced at $200 dollars, the stock market wouldn't have crashed, the titanic wouldn't have sunk, and I would have stopped the hijackers from crashing planes into the twin towers." - I'm not in their situations, and I just don't know what really has been the driving force of a $50+ standard for games. What makes me even more curious, is when sites like GoGamer.com ahve things like "48 hour madness" where they sell brand new games for less than half their standard price, and with free shipping.

 

[Jazzsta]

Well written. I guess this is the reason that the PS2 is still hanging in there. Its hitting this untapped "budget game market".

In the Uk there seem to be loads of "2 for £30" type offers on older games. I think its because we have competing game stores on the highstreet.

Im shocked at the price of Aussie games. Since the invention of the internet why do they still buy games in Australia?

Two reasons really - Firstly we have one of the poorest established communications infrastructure in the developed world, but also because most of the punters buying games aren't 'Gamers', and I'm certain this is the case in all countries. They're just ordinary blokes (and girls) who happen to own a console which probably functions primarily as a dvd (or blu-ray) player. Here in Aus, the high prices aren't just restricted to games either - new albums are traditionally sold at $30 ($50+ for any 'imported' stuff you wouldn't normally get here) and dvd's/blurays come out at $30-35/$40 respectively, and that's often before you take into account 'Collector's Editions' etc.

The city in which I live has a population of roughly 100,000, is about an hour's drive from our state's capital, Brisbane. Although our glorious little mountain town (1 part urban despair, 2 parts rural depression) really only has 1 major shopping-centre[Americans read MALL] (and half a dozen pretenders); we have no less than 3 game-shops on one floor...2 of them even opposite each other. EB, Gametraders and...Game? I forget the generic name of the third one, but either way, the bread and butter for all of them is trade-in games. Sold at retarded prices by and large. The only one that's worth half a shit is Game Traders (unashamedly announcing its intent) and that's only because they stock pre-loved games for consoles not normally catered for like 64, PS1, Atari and even PC (this is a mixed bag of eroding boxes and piecemeal manuals).

I should note that I've worked for EB (moved on to run my own internet cafe), and also at JB Hifi (also a trader-in-games). I guess that the folks here don't mind forking out $110 for a new game because THEY DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER.
(For those playing at home, Toowoomba is the name of the city)

 

[bjj hero]

(For those playing at home, Toowoomba is the name of the city)

Im not sure what the exchange rate is but thats a small fortune for games and CDs.
Your Town has the best name ever... except for Scunthorpe. The only Town in Britain with **** in the name. You can imagine the fun had by the kids with road signs and spray cans.

 

[cjbos81]

Game companies should self critique and alter pricing based on the quality of their product.

For instance, if they know one of their games sucks or is at least sub-par, it should cost less. A so-called "budget title". (Some smaller companies already do this.)

That way when one of their games is extremely good, we will complain less because we know we're getting our money's worth.

It'll be like the difference between a "streetwalker" and a "high class escort".

Or a "Beverly Hills" plastic surgeon as opposed to a "Tijuana" plastic surgeon which is the equivalent of an "Alabama" dentist.