TimeShift Dev Says $60 Price Tag is Holding Games Back
- Thread starter Scott Bullock
- Start date
fully agree with everything u said there, publishers know that idiots with enough money will go and buy games at full price, so they sell at full price.Eri said:
and to maximise profit, they cut development time and innovation to the extent where the game is complete and utter shit, just another game off the essembly line.
True that but the gaming companies need to stop copy and pasting the same game over and over.Eri said:
I'd however suggest that, games aren't $60 because they're big and long.
The vast majority of investment goes into creating the game and making it work well, and making it look and sound good. Once all that's in place, it's relatively cheap to bolt on extra areas, new levels, etc. (See DLC).
Essentially tho, were Atari VCS 2600 games not around the $60 mark? for a 4kb cartridge?
OFf topic, I was reading up on the 2600, as I used to have one back in the late 70s/early 80s, and it says that in 1980, they were looking into making a 'master module' that would let you pay a fee and download games thru your phone line!
How 'before their time' were they ?
The vast majority of investment goes into creating the game and making it work well, and making it look and sound good. Once all that's in place, it's relatively cheap to bolt on extra areas, new levels, etc. (See DLC).
Essentially tho, were Atari VCS 2600 games not around the $60 mark? for a 4kb cartridge?
OFf topic, I was reading up on the 2600, as I used to have one back in the late 70s/early 80s, and it says that in 1980, they were looking into making a 'master module' that would let you pay a fee and download games thru your phone line!
How 'before their time' were they ?
Some games are just dissapointingly short. A great example is Mirrors Edge. I would have gladly spent $60 dollars on the game if it hadn't been only a few hours long. Granted it is longer than any popular movie in recent history but it's still a lot of money for a game significantly shorter than a game like Uncharted 2
I'd kill for new realeses to be $60
The Australian Dollar is Almost equal to the USA Dollar, Yet I Pay At least $100 For a base version of a new release... I understand Were far away from the westen world. But still... your all lucky...
The Australian Dollar is Almost equal to the USA Dollar, Yet I Pay At least $100 For a base version of a new release... I understand Were far away from the westen world. But still... your all lucky...
If these companies are going to get the big pay day. THEY WILL HAVE TO TAKE RISK!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wish him luck with whatever customers he can actually gain through his games. I won't be buying small time piss-ant games from him. The only people he can blame is himself and his accountant holding his leash.
I wish him luck with whatever customers he can actually gain through his games. I won't be buying small time piss-ant games from him. The only people he can blame is himself and his accountant holding his leash.
This seems like a great idea on its surface, but really, if I get a game that is 1/6th the length of a full title, then I'm not really saving money. I'm just buying a sixth of a game.
yes. i DO believe shorter, cheaper games are the way to go. maybe they should have the occasional 65 dollar ULTRA-EPIC game like Mass Effect or Grand Theft Auto, but games like Crackdown 2? Prototype? Bulletstorm? these are games that are better taken in manageable chunks
i felt crackdown 2 was worth the 20 dollars i paid for it, i would have paid 30, maybe, but certainly not 65.
Prototype was also worth my 20, i felt i got GREAT value for it, and i would have gladly paid 40 dollars or more for it
Bulletstorm was not worth my 65, i was done with it in less than 8 hours and the multiplayer sucked.
it would be better to move towards making polished short games (both retail and downloadable) that could be, basically, testing the waters to see how that particular genre or concept works, then expand it into something more epic if it's successful.
if it only has niche appeal, just give it some DLC and let the hardcore fans have their fun, but you still don't lose a lot of money.
i really wish Radical, Rockstar, and Realtime/Ruffian games would do this... create short concept games that are only about 20 dollars or less and then expand on them if they're successful.
i felt crackdown 2 was worth the 20 dollars i paid for it, i would have paid 30, maybe, but certainly not 65.
Prototype was also worth my 20, i felt i got GREAT value for it, and i would have gladly paid 40 dollars or more for it
Bulletstorm was not worth my 65, i was done with it in less than 8 hours and the multiplayer sucked.
it would be better to move towards making polished short games (both retail and downloadable) that could be, basically, testing the waters to see how that particular genre or concept works, then expand it into something more epic if it's successful.
if it only has niche appeal, just give it some DLC and let the hardcore fans have their fun, but you still don't lose a lot of money.
i really wish Radical, Rockstar, and Realtime/Ruffian games would do this... create short concept games that are only about 20 dollars or less and then expand on them if they're successful.
I honestly don't remember people complaining as much back in 2003 when PS2 games cost $50. Taking inflation into account, games probably cost just as much now as they did back then. Also, it's worth considering how the price of games has stagnated at $60 from the beginning, meaning that all the inflation of the last few years have actually decreased the value of each game. The problem here is that certain games are worth $60 dollars, but only to select niche audiences (for example, I'd pay this money for Mass Effect 3 or Portal 2, but probably not Black Ops, and that is all due to personal preference). For FPS games that claim to spend a lot of development time on multiplayer, it would be more favorable to sell the game for cheaper, with people needing to pay extra for the online content. This would make these games more accessible to people who are not interested in playing online. For games without an online component, DLCs are a perfectly viable alternative. With the example of Mass Effect 2, imagine getting the main storyline for $40 and unlocking all the sidequests and loyalty missions (which earn extra skills) for another $20. The balance of revenue could probably be a bit more balanced, but the point would be that anyone who really enjoys the game will get all the content for the same price as they bought the game to begin with, while still giving people who are simply looking for a quick playthrough a cheaper alternative. Some games definitely deserve to be full-price regardless of these models: games that are too linear for elaborate side quests that still provide a long single player experience. Of course, when competing with games that offer cheaper alternatives, these could greatly suffer due to the higher price tag...
I play $60 for RPG's that are 35 hours+. Everything else I buy when it goes on sale on D2D or Steam or something or buy used.
For a 10 hour game to be worth 60 means it better be amazing. Making it 10 dollars for 2 hours, even though the price/hour is lower is not better.
For a 10 hour game to be worth 60 means it better be amazing. Making it 10 dollars for 2 hours, even though the price/hour is lower is not better.
*head desk*believer258 said:
God, some people are so sensitive. Obviously you're not the typical person if you're posting on a forum so don't get all offended because I wasn't referring to Halo or CoD fans in general, but to the kind of people who really ONLY buy Halo and CoD or a few games a year, so for them, $100 isn't that much.