Why are gamers so cheap? Should games cost more?

[Sabiancym]

This isn't a troll post to insult anyone, it's a genuine interest into why as a group, gamers tend to be very cheap when it comes to the cost of games and gaming equipment.

When console games went from $50 to $60, you had petitions, swearing off gaming, and people who actually sold their consoles simply because they had to pay an extra $10.

MMOs constantly get hated on by a group of gamers, yet they are a considerably better deal if you look at the cost to gameplay hour ratio. Very few people play one non-mmo game for years. If you buy one game every 3-4 months, it's exactly the same cost as an mmo.

DLC is constantly bashed by people not wanting to pay for extra content. Yet there are a ton of hobbies where extra things cost more. Booster packs for card games, parts for the car enthusiasts, etc.

Console makers tend to sell their consoles at a loss because they know gamers won't pay the extra $30-50 to cover their production costs. Yes they make it up in game sales and other avenues, but you know they would sell their consoles for more if they could.



So why is this? The average gamer age is high twenties to low thirties depending on which study you look at, so they should have enough money to drop on gaming, yet all I ever see are posts about people waiting to buy something until it's in the bargain bin. Or people demanding a game company reimburse them for some minor thing that really doesn't even effect their experience.


I'm not saying being economically aware is a bad thing, but I just wonder what this industry would be like if gamers were a bit more willing to spend. If big games were $80, the quality and depth would skyrocket. These developers would have more money to invest into technology and developers and that equals a better product.


I would be more than willing to pay $100 for a game if it led to a dramatic increase in gaming technology and depth. Considering an hour and thirty minute movie costs $8 around here, a 20+ hour game at $100 is a good deal. Especially when you add the hundreds of hours of online gameplay.


I'm sure I'm in the minority here, and will probably get some hate for this post.

 

[midget_roxx]

Come to australia. All games new are minimum $90 and I think MW2 came out at $110-120

 

[AndrewF022]

Well, I already pay at least $80 for most new releases anyway, so as long as they don't expect to push the cost of my games up any further I'll be happy, but I do agree that some games are worth more than others, a 50 hour CRPG is definitely worth your $80-100 (if its good), but a 5 hour hack and slasher or action game isn't, especially if theres no Multiplayer, Call of Duty for example, well worth it, Mirrors Edge, hell no.

I agree with the MMO comment though, they are easilly the best way to game on a budget, especially with all the F2P ones getting around these days (LotRO, Runes of Magic, Allods online etc).

 

[AndrewF022]

Come to australia. All games new are minimum $90 and I think MW2 came out at $110-120

If you have a JB-Hi-Fi near you they are probably the cheapest place to go, you can get a lot of new releases for $79-ish. NEVER buy from EB Games/GAME, they will shamelessly rip you off at every turn.

 

[Weaver]

I am 24 and have a full salaried job with benefits; but that doesn't mean I want to spend $60 on every game that comes out. I personally buy tons of games but I want to save money when I can. I have a huge backlog anyways.

And really, $60 after tax is close to $70; but the reality of the situation is just because I have a salaried job doesn't mean 100% of my profits or even a large portion of it is put aside just to dump into games. I want to save for a house, I pay car insurance, gas, car repairs, internet, electricity, cell phone bills, etc.

Also, the quality of games wouldn't skyrocket if they cost $20 more; the bottom line of the publisher would skyrocket. Gamers seem to be under this myth that large devs and publishers are somehow struggling to get by; these development studios are well compensated (I have a good deal of friends who make much more than I do in the gaming industry) and these publishers are raking in quite literally a few billion or at least several hundred million dollars of revenue a year. They already have more than enough expendable revenue they could be dumping into making better quality games - but they aren't doing that because the sad truth is games right now are pretty much the top quality we can achive with our technology.

If you want better quality games, you need to force publishers like EA to have looser deadlines. For instance, when EA says "You have 18 months to make this game" the game is coming out in 18 months regardless of it's state.

 

[Sabiancym]

MMOs constantly get hated on by a group of gamers, yet they are a considerably better deal if you look at the cost to gameplay hour ratio. Very few people play one non-mmo game for years. If you buy one game every 3-4 months, it's exactly the same cost as an mmo.

I've been playing ARMA 2 since its release in 2009; I've clocked up at least one hundred hours in the game and its expansion pack. That sounds to me like a pretty damned good gameplay-to-cost ratio, particularly as there's more gameplay in there. When ARMA 3 (announced just half-an-hour ago!) is released, I reckon the same deal will apply there. I frequently buy games which give me dozens of hours of play time.

I knew someone would bring up an FPS, but a hundred hours is nothing. MMO gamers do that in a month no problem.

 

[Wulfen73]

Basic economics my good man, if people won't pay than there is no point in higher pricing, not to mention, since a console can cost as much as a decent computer nowadays the console gaming market more than ever before has to compete with the PC gaming market and in a down turned global economy practicality comes before luxury making a computer, that has functions beyond entertainment a lot more appealing

 

[the D0rk One]

snip

Most gamers can't afford that every month (luckily there aren't so many new releases), so when they give up something to buy a game and it turns out less than they expected... well... they feel they got ripped off (not saying they should, but that's another discussion).

And of course, there are the Trolls, professional and amateur, doing it for the sake of it or for the sake of someone or something else.

 

[Phorkias]

First off - I think alot of us mid twenties come from piracy to actually buying games. So anything is more expensive than zero. Then, the good games are released in the same time zone - so in May I woke up having to buy 4-5 games. And one more - for some reason 50$ = 50 EUR, which is a bit weird (not to mention that retailers in my country add a profit margin so in the end console games cost around 70 EUR).

Finally - if you pay more there little to no guarantee you will get better games.

But anyway - who complains games are expensive?

 

[DEAD34345]

If big games were $80, the quality and depth would skyrocket. These developers would have more money to invest into technology and developers and that equals a better product.

This is simply not true. For the most part, companies just want to spend as little as possible creating a product and sell it as high as possible while still getting sales. If gamers suddenly decided they were willing to pay $80 for games, the companies wouldn't spend this extra money on improving the games, they would simply have an increased profit margin. If people were willing to pay $80 for the same games, then we would get the same games at $80. There would be no improvement.

I'm glad gamers are cheap, it forces game companies to work for their money. I myself spend about half of my gaming time playing games that are completely free, and only spend money on games I know are going to be good. A lot of other gamers do this, and it leads to games that get good reviews and word of mouth doing well (usually), while others don't (usually). This improves the industry greatly, and means that games actually have to be good to do well.

 

[XT inc]

You can argue and fight price hikes or you can sit there like a little ***** and take the industry changing the model from a 60 dollar game in its completed form, to some monstrosity that costs you well over 100 bucks over the course of dlc etc.

Such a smart world we live in where people go "you Know what I'd enjoy? paying more for the same or less content! Yeah lets do that"

 

[midget_roxx]

Come to australia. All games new are minimum $90 and I think MW2 came out at $110-120

If you have a JB-Hi-Fi near you they are probably the cheapest place to go, you can get a lot of new releases for $79-ish. NEVER buy from EB Games/GAME, they will shamelessly rip you off at every turn.

I'm looking at JBs catalogue now and they're selling COD:BO for $115, Witcher 2 for $85 and DA2 for $90 and these games have been out for some time (except Witcher2). I find JB to only be around $10 less than EB or Dick Smith. Would never buy from game :/

 

[Sabiancym]

If big games were $80, the quality and depth would skyrocket. These developers would have more money to invest into technology and developers and that equals a better product.

This is simply not true. For the most part, companies just want to spend as little as possible creating a product and sell it as high as possible while still getting sales. If gamers suddenly decided they were willing to pay $80 for games, the companies wouldn't spend this extra money on improving the games, they would simply have an increased profit margin. If people were willing to pay $80 for the same games, then we would get the same games at $80. There would be no improvement.

I'm glad gamers are cheap, it forces game companies to work for their money. I myself spend about half of my gaming time playing games that are completely free, and only spend money on games I know are going to be good. A lot of other gamers do this, and it leads to games that get good reviews and word of mouth doing well (usually), while others don't (usually). This improves the industry greatly, and means that games actually have to be good to do well.

No...

If that were true the cost to produce games would not be going up, yet it is. The more money these companies make, the more money they put into games. Do you think that the last Call of Duty games cost exactly the same to make as the previous ones? Of course not, it cost considerably more because they had all the money from the sales of the previous.

It takes money to make money.

 

[Sabiancym]

MMOs constantly get hated on by a group of gamers, yet they are a considerably better deal if you look at the cost to gameplay hour ratio. Very few people play one non-mmo game for years. If you buy one game every 3-4 months, it's exactly the same cost as an mmo.

I've been playing ARMA 2 since its release in 2009; I've clocked up at least one hundred hours in the game and its expansion pack. That sounds to me like a pretty damned good gameplay-to-cost ratio, particularly as there's more gameplay in there. When ARMA 3 (announced just half-an-hour ago!) is released, I reckon the same deal will apply there. I frequently buy games which give me dozens of hours of play time.

I knew someone would bring up an FPS, but a hundred hours is nothing. MMO gamers do that in a month no problem.

And that's a hundred hours per month I could be spending on better things, like playing games I actually like, or working, or any of a myriad of other things. I don't like MMO games. I've never found an MMO I've found properly fun. They're grindfests.

Ok, but we're not talking about what games you like. We're talking about cost efficiency. If you spend that other hundred hours playing other games, you're paying more than the MMO gamer.

 

[farq1414]

Come to australia. All games new are minimum $90 and I think MW2 came out at $110-120

yeah mostly new good games cost $110 while i have seen some at $80 but not as good ones

 

[Sabiancym]

snip

Most gamers can't afford that every month (luckily there aren't so many new releases), so when they give up something to buy a game and it turns out less than they expected... well... they feel they got ripped off (not saying they should, but that's another discussion).

And of course, there are the Trolls, professional and amateur, doing it for the sake of it or for the sake of someone or something else.

That's the whole point of the thread. More money for the developers would mean considerably better games. Not everytime, but generally.

Look at the quality and depth of games nowadays compared to before. It's considerably better. Yes it is partially due to better technology, but it also due to the increased revenue.

 

[Arehexes]

If big games were $80, the quality and depth would skyrocket. These developers would have more money to invest into technology and developers and that equals a better product.

This is simply not true. For the most part, companies just want to spend as little as possible creating a product and sell it as high as possible while still getting sales. If gamers suddenly decided they were willing to pay $80 for games, the companies wouldn't spend this extra money on improving the games, they would simply have an increased profit margin. If people were willing to pay $80 for the same games, then we would get the same games at $80. There would be no improvement.

I'm glad gamers are cheap, it forces game companies to work for their money. I myself spend about half of my gaming time playing games that are completely free, and only spend money on games I know are going to be good. A lot of other gamers do this, and it leads to games that get good reviews and word of mouth doing well (usually), while others don't (usually). This improves the industry greatly, and means that games actually have to be good to do well.

No...

If that were true the cost to produce games would not be going up, yet it is. The more money these companies make, the more money they put into games. Do you think that the last Call of Duty games cost exactly the same to make as the previous ones? Of course not, it cost considerably more because they had all the money from the sales of the previous.

It takes money to make money.

errr....the last few call of duty games seem to run on the same engine if you ask me, just updated. And with 2 years for a company to update a already in place engine it doesn't seem to hard. Also look at the EA Sport games, they are more of less the same game every year. Same of Halo 3 and it's engine which is also used in ODST and Reach. It is more or less the same game with added stuff. Not every game is made from scratch unless the company wants it's own engine to forgo buying one, but even then they can just reuse and save. But no raising the cost of a game won't improve any thing. And the only reason the cost to produce a game is going up is to give a game those high res graphics everyone wants games to have now.