TimeShift Dev Says $60 Price Tag is Holding Games Back

[Svenparty]

I started borrowing games and renting ever since the price tag started to rise. With every other form of media being MUCH cheaper this is the obvious outcome.

It is also a huge shame that the industry is quickly eliminating used games instead of trying something innovative or not crooked.

 

[Astalano]

And what about the non-idiots you enjoy both Call of Duty and Halo?

They'll still buy CoD and Halo I suppose, but not as much as the casual gamer who only buys a few games a year.

And what counts as a medium-tier Dev. Any Dev who doesn't producing a FPS that sells tens of millions of copies?

Top tier dev would be Bungie, Blizzard, Valve, Rockstar, Infinity Ward, Treyarch.

Medium-Top tier dev would be Crytek, Bioware, Irrational Games, some of Ubisoft's games, Bethesda, etc.

Medium tier dev would be the guys who made Just Cause, some of Ubisoft's games, Gearbox, Obsidian, etc.

Low-Medium tier dev would be guys like Raven Software, who made Singularity, etc.

Low tier dev would be all the guys making small games who aren't indie.

Indie tier is really cheap ($15 games or less) games.

That, is even more flawed and it would probably drive at least some of the "idiot market", as you say away from the games and since they're part of that "idiot" sub-group they won't be interested in the middle or lower-tier developers.

It's also an imperfect system, but a much better one that the one we have now.

 

[StriderShinryu]

He definitely has a point, but you have to consider that it's also all about the optics of the situation. Generally the opinion of the public is that money = quality. That $10 bottle of shampoo has to somehow be better than the $6 bottle even if they have the same ingredients, right?

While the lower price on bargain bin titles has an appeal of it's own (hey, if it sucks it only cost me $10!), this is still valid consideration if you're looking at the standard game store shelf. Let's say you see two RPGs on the self next to each other and don't really know much about either of them except that they've both just been released. One costs $60 while the other costs $40. Despite what we all know about the quality of the experience in a game not being tied to the price, would you honestly not wonder to yourself why the one game is released for a lower price? Would you honestly not think that the $60 game must somehow be a better, or at least more polished, experience?

 

[maddawg IAJI]

I would gladly pay 60 bucks for about a 12-15 hours worth of content then 30 bucks for a game that lasts about an afternoon.

 

[Smooth Operator]

While I somewhat agree, it is also somewhat gamers own fault as well. Constantly buying shovelware, or plain not good games, sends a message that we will buy shit, despite the price. If people only bought games for 60$ that they were POSITIVE they would like, it wouldn't be so bad.

That's what I do, and I can safely say I've never bought a game I didn't like, because I research it beforehand.

Well you haveto know the full spectrum of people who now buy games, it has become a big casual industry and I'd say about 70% of consumers will simply buy a game because it's new and pretty, throw some 3D on top and they will eat it up anything they get.
This sadly does shoot quality games right in the foot, if developers get 60$ for a bad game why would they bother making a good one...

I think the solution is in developers with some common decency, make one casual game that sells like hot-cakes, then use that money to develop something you really wanted, something new, polished, awesome.

 

[Nerf Ninja]

Why is gaming not able to support both?

Have the high priced franchised game and also have the lower priced experimental type game.

If they do well have the sequel become elevated to the higher priced bigger budget franchise type.

 

[josemlopes]

Portal was short. It still had enough content to be worth the cheap price.

Battle LA only has 3 weapons and 1/2 enemies so yeah, its 1/2 hours of mediocrity.

 

[josemlopes]

I would gladly pay 60 bucks for about a 12-15 hours worth of content then 30 bucks for a game that lasts about an afternoon.

But what is truly happening is 60 bucks for 6-7 hours and 15 bucks for 2-4 hours

 

[Caliostro]

He makes a good point... Now if only they did games that didn't suck I might have some interest in their work.

Dvd. $15 - 2 hours entertainment.
Game. $60 - 10 + hours entertainment.

What's the problem?

Book $10 - $20 - 5-10+ hours easily, depending on the book.

By that very logic, why are people buying anything else?

Then there's also the "all your eggs in one basket" issue. If you buy a DVD that you end up not enjoying as much as you predicted from the trailer, you lost 15 bucks. If the same happens with a game you lost 60. Same reason you don't go all in every single hand in poker.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

I would gladly pay 60 bucks for about a 12-15 hours worth of content then 30 bucks for a game that lasts about an afternoon.

But what is truly happening is 60 bucks for 6-7 hours and 15 bucks for 2-4 hours

For most FPS games and such, but those games make up for it with the use of Multiplayer. Most games that are planned to be released on a 15 dollar budget wouldn't be able to compete with that.

I don't wanna say Multiplayer is the deciding factor that turns the tides, but you probably wouldn't buy Halo or Call of Duty if you were after the single player experience, chances are, if you like to play solo games, you'd be buying a GTA game or a Bioware game and both those companies tend to produce games that last well into the week.

 

[scotth266]

All in all, the prices on games are pretty variable if you're not into instant gratification. Arkham Asylum was $7.50 during last week's Midweek Madness on Steam, for instance. Great game, and pretty new to boot. Sure, you don't get the whole pleasure of "keeping up with the Joneses" while you wait for prices to drop, but you heavily protect yourself from buyer's remorse.

I've bought $60 games that were worth every penny, and $5 games that were a total waste of cash. All of them had extremely variable amounts of content. Purchase price isn't necessarily tied to the length of a game: Torchlight was only $20 at it's most expensive, and other games like League Of Legends can provide countless play hours for free (though I did blow $30 on the Champion Pack, I've put in at least 500 hours on an essentially free game).

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

I'm currently in a position where I can barely afford to spend more than £10 on a game every month, assuming I can even scratch up that, so I've only been shopping pre-owned or on Amazon / Play browsing for bargains like new S.T.A.L.K.E.R campaigns for under £5. Luckily I've seen a lot of awesome PS3 games I've been looking for at CeX for £10 and under recently, so the next time I have disposable income it's going on Yakuza 3 or something equally innovative and awesome for a good sight less than the £40 release day titles.

If I can get a job while at university it might ease things a little, but I can't see it changing much, I still see £40 as a serious chunk of wallet weight. The game tends to have to be something that I'm going to play into the ground then through the New Zealand to justify it. Such a shame New Vegas was a glitchy hell.

 

[Zom-B]

Dvd. $15 - 2 hours entertainment.
Game. $60 - 10 + hours entertainment.

What's the problem?

And if you worry that people don't want to shell out on something they may not like then make a DEMO!

The problem is, is that top tier games have similar development costs to movies, i.e. in the tens of millions of dollars range.

Granted, the movie experience is shorter, and most studios hope to recoup their costs in DVD sales, but theatre ticket sales, typically $10 - $15, can make studios huge profits even before teh DVD/Bluray release.

I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone that believes, or the numbers to back it up, that the gaming industry is struggling with new games at the $60 price point. I'm willing to bet that producers/developers would have profits just as good if not better selling new releases at $40 or even $50 max, just due to the increased sales numbers they have.

At this point in time, publishers are pricing games out of a lot of their customer's reach, which is exactly why piracy remains and many people choose to purchase used games, myself included. Sure, I buy new for games I'm really excited about (like Skyrim. I'll be purchasing that day one) or when the price drops, but I'm not willing to risk $60 on a game that I might hate or might suck or be full of bugs (F:NV, I'm looking at you), nor can I really afford to spend $60 or more every month for one new game just to feed my gaming addiction, when I can easily spend $60 and probably get 2 or even 3 used PS3 games. Or buy a half dozen games on teh PSN.

The game publishers really haven't given me a reason to want to give them sixty bucks a pop.

 

[omicron1]

Dvd. $15 - 2 hours entertainment.
Game. $60 - 10 + hours entertainment.

What's the problem?

And if you worry that people don't want to shell out on something they may not like then make a DEMO!

The problem comes when you realize that very few modern "AAA" games actually offer 10+ hours of entertainment to everybody.

Take me, for example. I don't play multiplayer. For me, the latest Call of Duty might afford five hours, maybe. That's $12 per hour.

Or take the topic game - Battle: LA. $10 for an hour of gameplay? Assuming a movie ticket costs $10, that game costs twice as much per hour of fun as going to see the original movie. Is it twice as fun as the movie? (I dunno - I hear the movie wasn't all that great...)

For a long while now, the AAA industry (so focused around the FPS genre as it is) has depended on multiplayer to make its games "worth it." So what if your game has a 5-hour campaign - you could spend solid days engrossed in multiplayer, right?

So, perhaps for you Call of Duty is worth the money. For me, it isn't - and though I would very much like to play through the campaigns, I'd only do it at a reasonable price point - say, around $20 - and the stated opinion of Saber Interactive fits very well with my views on the situation.

 

[BlueberryMUNCH]

As much as I agree...the more I read the article...the closer my palm got to my face. Sure,a £40 price tag is way too high, and is stopping me buying the new releases; namely Crysis 2.

But if a lower price= short games...then nah, I think I'll wait a few months, cheers.

Also...finishing a game in under an hour?
[sub]wow......[/sub]

 

[The Gnome King]

I'm afraid I don't see the logic in this. I spend, easily, $40 on lunch with my wife. Make that $60 if we have a couple of drinks. Going out to the movies easily sets you back $20.

Dragon Age 2 has already provided me with over 50 hours of gameplay, and I am replaying it a second time. What other form of entertainment offers a value of $1/hour (or less) for an engaging story? Reading books, perhaps, but writing a book requires one person where writing a game requires a game studio and the paychecks of many people to be paid.

I'd actually gladly pay MORE than $60 for a new game if the game was quality, if the developers took time to release it with the content and bug-free design I expect; etc.

I see people all the time who don't balk at dropping more than that at a night out at a bar but ask them to pay for IP (intellectual property) that offers countless more hours of entertainment and they suddenly become defensive.

I wonder if it is part of the age-old societal disrespect of artists or gamers/games in general. I know when I was younger I paid $30 or $40 for a new game, and that was 20 years ago. Accounting for inflation, $60 doesn't seem like a steep price *at all* for a game now. Especially if we want gaming developers to 1) make a profit and 2) continue to be able to make great games.

Seriously, what other form of entertainment in life provides as much fun for us at such a value as gaming? And I'm asking this on a website devoted to gaming! I have a serious D&D/tabletop game hobby, too and I usually pay at least $30 for a game book. Considering the man-hours that go into a digital game as opposed to a book, I can't see the hue and outcry over this; except that people right now in this economy are (rightly so) holding on more tightly to their dollars.

 

[Jfswift]

Does anyone remember the series of "Special Ops" games for Playstation 1? Each game was reasonably priced and included roughly 10-15 levels. I think this module system worked out rather well. My friend and I ended up buying all of them and if the first game flopped.. well it wouldn't be too much of an impact to the developer.

I agree btw that $60 is way too much. Especially considering how shitty the last two games I bought were and for how much I paid. I think some of these game developers are crazy to price them so high. Steam has the right idea offering 10-20% opening week and usually a few months later on popular games (as an alternative to what I suggested above).