Why are gamers so cheap? Should games cost more?
- Thread starter Sabiancym
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Come live in Australia and I guarantee that you'll ask the Mods to delete this thread.Sabiancym said:
Games really are overpriced. Something has happened that's caused an inflation in game prices over the years, and it needs to stop.
Let's do some critical thinking.
paying $60 for a game is fine if you'll get the time out of it. FPS games are a great deal if you play the multiplayer, but if you're like me and don't, then $60 is complete bullshit for 5, maybe 6 hours of singe-player content. Less if you don't count cutscenes.
MMOs get ripped on because you're essentially paying to work. a lot of MMOs simply aren't fun when you boil them down to their base mechanics, so paying every 30 days for the right to grind more skeletons is kind of stupid.
DLC is fine, assuming it's priced right. Day 1 DLC on the other hand is about a pleasant as the publishers ejaculating all over my face.
console manufacturers make boatloads of money from a million other places besides the consoles. A console is an investment because if it's good, it promises more profit than you could get with the box alone. Microsoft gets a cut from every 360 game sold, not to mention a much much larger cut if it was developed in-house. They make money from devs buying the developer kits, and as time wears on, the tech used in the console gets cheaper, so the loss per console shrinks or goes away completely.
People that play videogames are cheap bastards, but you chose all of the wrong arguments. Somebody post a link to the statistics for how much people paid on average for the Humble Indie Bundles.
paying $60 for a game is fine if you'll get the time out of it. FPS games are a great deal if you play the multiplayer, but if you're like me and don't, then $60 is complete bullshit for 5, maybe 6 hours of singe-player content. Less if you don't count cutscenes.
MMOs get ripped on because you're essentially paying to work. a lot of MMOs simply aren't fun when you boil them down to their base mechanics, so paying every 30 days for the right to grind more skeletons is kind of stupid.
DLC is fine, assuming it's priced right. Day 1 DLC on the other hand is about a pleasant as the publishers ejaculating all over my face.
console manufacturers make boatloads of money from a million other places besides the consoles. A console is an investment because if it's good, it promises more profit than you could get with the box alone. Microsoft gets a cut from every 360 game sold, not to mention a much much larger cut if it was developed in-house. They make money from devs buying the developer kits, and as time wears on, the tech used in the console gets cheaper, so the loss per console shrinks or goes away completely.
People that play videogames are cheap bastards, but you chose all of the wrong arguments. Somebody post a link to the statistics for how much people paid on average for the Humble Indie Bundles.
As an honest question, how? I've barely hit 12 hours on Arma 2 and I've exhausted all of its content several times over, do you just really like the game or is there a secret site with mods and additions that I've never found?RAKtheUndead said:
Guess I'd better answer the OP to justify asking that, here goes:
The best argument I've heard is talking about the money:time ratio when compared to movies or even books. A film (normal film, not 3D) in my local cinema costs me £7 and lasts for about 2 hours. Now to take a very short game as an example, Modern Warfare 2, it cost me £40. If the ratio was the same, I'd expect it to provide somewhere just under 12 hours of entertainment, and it barely took 4 hours to complete (though infairness I did have to play through it 3 fucking times to understand all of the plot points). And no, I didn't touch the multiplayer, I don't care about your arguments, I had no interest in the multiplayer yet I could get the game cheaper with the multiplayer disabled.
Add this to the fact that it's a significantly larger investement to buy a game than a movie, and there's a problem. Also consider that some games can have a much larger money:time ratio than others; checking my Steam stats I've clocked over 180 hours on Mass Effect 2, a game that probably cost me about £40 (I can't seem to find the initial cost of the game when it was first released). Going by the "£7 for 2 hours" model, this means that ME2 shoudl have cost me a whopping £630 (no really, that's correct).
With a combination of many mainstream FPS titles giving such terrible price to entertainment ratios compared to other entertainment, along with it being possible to find games that give such fantastic ratios, it's hardly surprising that people complain about the price of the poor ones.
Sure, let games go to $800 per unit, I'm set on just about never buying a game that costs me more than $30 anyway, and I'm sure I'd grow to appreciate retro gaming a lot more that way.
Hell no. I'm 14, I can barely pay for games as it is. That's like asking if books should be $30 instead of $10. Why would they be? If they're making a profit, that's about where they should stop. Maybe a little more or less for good or bad games respectively.
I think most of you are just posting your sticker shock reaction instead of actually thinking it out. I figured that would happen.
Modern economics backs up my point. Every company under the sun knows that the only way to make more money, is to put more money in.
Where is the proof that game companies will continue to churn out exactly the same game at $80 that they would for $60? It's simply not true. Maybe a few companies would churn out crap, but that already happens.
At $80, the average quality of gaming would go up, considerably. Stop using games and genres you don't like as an example. You're never going to like those games. Use a game you really enjoy, and now imagine what that game would be like if the company had 140% of their current budget.
It doesn't even matter if you agree with me. The cost of games are already going up. DLC is making companies millions, and because of that you'll see (and are already seeing) better and better games. Better being relative of course.
Modern economics backs up my point. Every company under the sun knows that the only way to make more money, is to put more money in.
Where is the proof that game companies will continue to churn out exactly the same game at $80 that they would for $60? It's simply not true. Maybe a few companies would churn out crap, but that already happens.
At $80, the average quality of gaming would go up, considerably. Stop using games and genres you don't like as an example. You're never going to like those games. Use a game you really enjoy, and now imagine what that game would be like if the company had 140% of their current budget.
It doesn't even matter if you agree with me. The cost of games are already going up. DLC is making companies millions, and because of that you'll see (and are already seeing) better and better games. Better being relative of course.
A minute long music track costs 70p.
A 2 hour film costs £10.
A 6 hour game costs £50.
A 10 hour book costs £5.
6 hours of music costs £42, 6 hours of films costs £30, 6 hours of books cost £3 and 6 hours of games costs £50.
Though it really depends on the developer, games are up there with movies on the poor cost for time. It isn't that simple though; music and games have the best replay value.
A 2 hour film costs £10.
A 6 hour game costs £50.
A 10 hour book costs £5.
6 hours of music costs £42, 6 hours of films costs £30, 6 hours of books cost £3 and 6 hours of games costs £50.
Though it really depends on the developer, games are up there with movies on the poor cost for time. It isn't that simple though; music and games have the best replay value.
Fuck no they shouldn't be higher. They are already overpriced as it is for the generic shit rehashes and ports we constantly get. Since, lets say PS1/N64 era, the quality in graphics and physics has gone up, but the quality in the actual game has gone down. $60 for a 4 hour game? Yeah right.
As for money, right now, I'm lucky if I make more than $150 a week and with the economy, I'm not getting any more hours or have much of a chance to find a new job. And the more money for developers = better games thing. Yeah, right. The big AAA studios mostly just put out the same thing over and over again with a new coat of paint and minor tweaks: Halo series, Call of Duty series, Dragon Age series, etc.
As for money, right now, I'm lucky if I make more than $150 a week and with the economy, I'm not getting any more hours or have much of a chance to find a new job. And the more money for developers = better games thing. Yeah, right. The big AAA studios mostly just put out the same thing over and over again with a new coat of paint and minor tweaks: Halo series, Call of Duty series, Dragon Age series, etc.
What?? That's not even close to true.Cid SilverWing said:
Nintendo games were at least $50. N64 games were the same. PS1, PS2 and Xbox games were all $50.
The cost of games has remained stable. If anything, it's due for an increase. Look at the cost of everything else over that same time frame. They've all increased dramatically.
A while ago, it cost $50 for a game, and that was the only way to get them. There were no indie titles, there were no free games, there was no digital distribution, or anything like that.
"Hey, guys! Hey, guys! Look at what I got!"
"Is that...a VIDEO GAME?"
(all) "WHOOOOOAAAAAAAA......"
Today, I can download the Unreal Engine for free and start making a game with 5 people that has graphics 10 times as good as anything released in 2004.
Today, there are about 10 bazillion flash games made by all kinds of people that cost nothing.
Today, most successful MMORPGs are free to play. (With some large exceptions)
Today, more people are trying to get into the industry and make more and more games than ever before.
Today, many indie games with a price point around $10 have gotten much higher reviews than average AAA games.
Individual games do not have the value they had all those years ago, because now gaming is much easier to reach.
"Hey, guys! Hey, guys! Look at what I got!"
"Is that...a VIDEO GAME?"
(all) "WHOOOOOAAAAAAAA......"
Today, I can download the Unreal Engine for free and start making a game with 5 people that has graphics 10 times as good as anything released in 2004.
Today, there are about 10 bazillion flash games made by all kinds of people that cost nothing.
Today, most successful MMORPGs are free to play. (With some large exceptions)
Today, more people are trying to get into the industry and make more and more games than ever before.
Today, many indie games with a price point around $10 have gotten much higher reviews than average AAA games.
Individual games do not have the value they had all those years ago, because now gaming is much easier to reach.
There are plenty of games with well over 20 hours. Why do people expect to get those for the same price as a crappy 5 hour game?ultimateownage said:
That's the whole point. The better developers should get rewarded with more money. Which would allow them to make even better games.
Why are gamers cheap? Because the ones that have the money to buy a lot of games don't have the time, and the ones that have the time don't have the money. So they have to try and get the most bang for their buck. Hell, here in Australia a new release game is around $100, usually $110, and then if you want a fancy special edition...
Meanwhile I'm an unemployed student. So I don't have the time OR the money.
Meanwhile I'm an unemployed student. So I don't have the time OR the money.
No, they complain because they are jaded and comparing the game to the best of the best. I'm not saying that every game should cost the same. I'm saying the best games should cost more.the D0rk One said:Oh boy, and the trolling has begunSabiancym said:
That's just it, the quality and depth don't keep up with the price.
And extra revenue for the developers usually means more expensive tech, not necessarily better games overall.
If more expensive games mean what you say they mean, then why are so many gamers complaining? Some gamers don't complain about the price because they're poor, but because most games don't deliver on the price (in their humble opinions).
A Dead or Alive Volleyball game should not cost the same as a Dragon Age or GTA.
Compared to the average game 10-15 years ago, today's games are amazing. Nostalgia and jadedness keep people from realizing it.
Because most of those "crappy" games put more time into other things they warrants the budget increase (Like the visuals and scripting for the cut scenes in games). Also I did not make a "shocker" response I just didn't agree with you, like others have done. And I don't see better games to be honest, I see the same damn rehashes every year. Companies aren't throwing money on risks anymore, they are pretty much retouching things that are already popular. And most DLC that comes out is nothing but a Key to unlock data, or just maps to add to multiplayer. There is not a lot of DLC that really adds to a games length outside of multiplayer. I remember before online when a game would get an expansion which add more gameplay time to it, now we don't have that anymore. End of the story not a lot of people agree with you and we are the ones who speak with our money not just you. And there are a lot of great games out there that don't cost 60 bucks and is short, try to expand your gaming tastes. You can find fun 60 dollar games that play for a long time.Sabiancym said:
As a Uk resident generally i pay around £40 for a game which currently equals about $65 US, imo this isnt 'cheap' in any way and with the extra price of DLC it gets even more expensive. As an older gamer i remember when games were around £5 each and some retailed for as little as £2.
Yes the whole business has changed from a cottage industry to a multi-billion dollar concern that rivals Hollywood but at the same time i would say a lot of the charm has gone out of mainstream gaming to cater to the mass market and i suspect some of the development teams are fat with people who do very little (QA departments seem to have grown alarmingly in size yet many games still seem poorly tested with obvious bugs that are only fixed later-Brink i am definitely looking at you here).
I think games are generally priced according to what the market will accept and DLC is a crafty way of getting around this by giving people the option of buying a basic product and then making micropayments to get the full experience.
Yes the whole business has changed from a cottage industry to a multi-billion dollar concern that rivals Hollywood but at the same time i would say a lot of the charm has gone out of mainstream gaming to cater to the mass market and i suspect some of the development teams are fat with people who do very little (QA departments seem to have grown alarmingly in size yet many games still seem poorly tested with obvious bugs that are only fixed later-Brink i am definitely looking at you here).
I think games are generally priced according to what the market will accept and DLC is a crafty way of getting around this by giving people the option of buying a basic product and then making micropayments to get the full experience.
But what if a game that costs you $200 bucks was twice as long and twice as good as current games? Would you buy it? I don't see why not.evilstonermonkey said:
That's what a lot of people dont' seem to get, or just aren't believing. The cost per entertainment ratio would be better, or at the very least, exactly the same.
Would I rather pay $50 and play the current Mass Effect?
Or would I rather pay $100 and play a Mass Effect that is twice as long, more graphically detailed, and better acted?
The choice is a no brainer.
Of course it's not that simple, but generally speaking, that's how it would work.