Why are gamers so cheap? Should games cost more?

[Woodsey]

Game prices are just fine the way they are.

 

[Pirate1019]

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.

You're forgetting that the bottleneck for most games today is the complete lack of creativity on the developer's part, or the unwillingness for publishers to risk funding new ideas.

If we want good games we need to stop encouraging developers to churn out blockbuster titles with absurd budgets. Lower budget games pose less risk so experimentation is feasible. It's why indie games are so crazy popular at the moment.

Videogames are starting to hit a plateau in technical quality, and gameplay quality will stagnate if more money is just thrown at games with the naive thought that quality rises in direct proportion to budget.

 

[MuppeTeN]

Because I don't work yet and that price is something I can afford while still buying lunch at college, Once i start working, i would have no problem to pay 60-80 for a GOOD game.

 

[Sabiancym]

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.

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?

That's the whole point. The better developers should get rewarded with more money. Which would allow them to make even better games.

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.

Companies keep churning out sequels and rehashes because they know people will buy them. At $50-$60, people can afford to risk the money on a game they don't know much about.

At $100, only the good games would make the big money. Instead of a saturated market with crap everywhere, you'd have a more focused market with quality games. You'd have more information about the game, more demos, and be able to make more informed decisions on the games you buy.

And nowhere did I say that every game should cost the same. So I don't know where you got that "expand your gaming tastes" line from.

 

[Arehexes]

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.

Oh boy, and the trolling has begun

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).

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.

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.

Dude you are so full of it, it's not funny anymore. I for one realize today's games beat the piss out of games from the past. But the problem is this The tech from the past has prevented games from the past to look like games from today[\b]. It costs big money to render the graphics a lot of today's games use. You are just pissed no one here is agreeing with your stupid idea of making games cost more. Here is an example Disgaea 3 is a PS3 game but has the graphics of a PS2 game.

And I bring up stuff from the past because your sitting here saying the tech has nothing to do with it, which is not true. If a system can't render 3D in this day in age it shouldn't cost as much to make. The games on the 3DS are projected to increase in stores because of the tech going in to the games to make them look the best they can (and make use of the 3D). And this is because of the tech behind that system.

Dude just face the facts no one wants prices of any thing to raise higher then it should be, why not increase the cost of books so the author can write more making the book last longer.
Disgaea 3:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2008/239/942139_20080827_screen005.jpg

Disgaea 2:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/187/930240_20060707_screen002.jpg

How much should disgaea 3 cost? If we are talking length then it's worth over 200 bucks because of the time spent need to finish everything if you don't use exploits. And you know a lot of fans complained that Disgaea 3 looked like a crappy PS2 game for the most part.

I think your the jaded one here because your pretty much whining that games should cost more to be better when you your self said

 

[kayisking]

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).

So are you saying that Stalin vs. The Martians is worth more then Arkham Asylum. Lenght isn't the sole factor that decides a games worth, hell it isn't even that much of an important factor.
Ps. Please excuse my poor English, I am not a native speaker.

 

[Umberjon]

@ OP
I just had to post.
You do realize that enormous amounts of money don't go into the actual development but rather in advertising? Advertising costs could in some cases even be higher than the cost of developing a game.
I work in a publishing company for expert handbooks and we have a set budget for creating a handbook and an almost unlimited budget for advertising. If we raised the cost of our handbooks and got more money out of it we would boost the advertising but keep the budget limit for creating the content.
And I can guarantee you that the same thing would happen with EA or any other gaming publisher.

I'm guessing you don't work so you never really have to spend your own money, earned by hard work?

 

[Sabiancym]

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.

You're forgetting that the bottleneck for most games today is the complete lack of creativity on the developer's part, or the unwillingness for publishers to risk funding new ideas.

If we want good games we need to stop encouraging developers to churn out blockbuster titles with absurd budgets. Lower budget games pose less risk so experimentation is feasible. It's why indie games are so crazy popular at the moment.

Videogames are starting to hit a plateau in technical quality, and gameplay quality will stagnate if more money is just thrown at games with the naive thought that quality rises in direct proportion to budget.

People have said that technology can't get any better every decade since the industrial revolution. It's never true. Technology and therefore games will always get better.

There would still be indie games, still be cheaper experimentation games. Nowhere did I say that every game would cost the same. It's just that the best games should cost more to increase the quality.

 

[maturin]

Not until the big-time releases actually start releasing more content, rather than less. I expect prices to go up with the next console generation, and understand that, though.

 

[Jandau]

Because we don't all live in the US/UK and the $60+ price tag isn't as mild to everyone as it is to some people. I know, this doesn't apply to the people living in high income countries, but to some of us, gaming is already quite expensive. We don't want it getting any worse in that regard.

 

[Arehexes]

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.

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?

That's the whole point. The better developers should get rewarded with more money. Which would allow them to make even better games.

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.

Companies keep churning out sequels and rehashes because they know people will buy them. At $50-$60, people can afford to risk the money on a game they don't know much about.

At $100, only the good games would make the big money. Instead of a saturated market with crap everywhere, you'd have a more focused market with quality games. You'd have more information about the game, more demos, and be able to make more informed decisions on the games you buy.

And nowhere did I say that every game should cost the same. So I don't know where you got that "expand your gaming tastes" line from.

I only "expand your gaming tastes" because you can find great games for cheap if you look away from AAA titles. The NIS games are known for sucking your life away for a cool 60 bucks (people have spent 100's of hours on their games). Also at $50-$60 people can afford a risk? Dude I'm wondering do you work for your own money or have to budget it for anything else other then games, cause I only see that kind of attitude from people who could care less where their money goes. And no a increase in costs would not insure all these things you are suggesting. Everything you are saying is pure speculation for the most part, you act like if we let publishers (not the developers but publishers) raise the price we get a better deal. By that logic raise gas prices then so we get better gas.

 

[Sabiancym]

I just had to post.
You do realize that enormous amounts of money don't go into the actual development but rather in advertising? Advertising costs could in some cases even be higher than the cost of developing a game.
I work in a publishing company for expert handbooks and we have a set budget for creating a handbook and an almost unlimited budget for advertising. If we raised the cost of our handbooks and got more money out of it we would boost the advertising but keep the budget limit for creating the content.
And I can guarantee you that the same thing would happen with EA or any other gaming publisher.

I'm guessing you don't work so you never really have to spend your own money, earned by hard work?

What the hell is your problem? Saying I don't work? I own an industrial supply company. I'm sorry you don't agree with me, but you don't need to start flaming me for it.

There is no question as to whether companies would put more money into their games if they made more money. It's already been done and has been done since the industry was created. The games nowadays even after accounting for inflation cost considerably more than they did even 10 years ago.


If you want to have a discussion that's fine, but drop the insults.

 

[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).

So are you saying that Stalin vs. The Martians is worth more then Arkham Asylum. Lenght isn't the sole factor that decides a games worth, hell it isn't even that much of an important factor.
Ps. Please excuse my poor English, I am not a native speaker.

Of course not, Quality > Length at all times.. but what I was getting at is that a solid 50 hour CRPG.. say Dragon Age: Origins is worth paying more for than a short game of equal quality. However, that being said, I long but bad game, taking your example of Stalin vs. Martians would not be worth anywhere near as much as Arkham Asylum should, based on quality of content, not length.

 

[kayisking]

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).

So are you saying that Stalin vs. The Martians is worth more then Arkham Asylum. Lenght isn't the sole factor that decides a games worth, hell it isn't even that much of an important factor.
Ps. Please excuse my poor English, I am not a native speaker.

Of course not, Quality > Length at all times.. but what I was getting at is that a solid 50 hour CRPG.. say Dragon Age: Origins is worth paying more for than a short game of equal quality. However, that being said, I long but bad game, taking your example of Stalin vs. Martians would not be worth anywhere near as much as Arkham Asylum should, based on quality of content, not length.

My apoligies, I seem to have misunderstood your point, and I'm glad you agree.

 

[Arehexes]

@ OP
I just had to post.
You do realize that enormous amounts of money don't go into the actual development but rather in advertising? Advertising costs could in some cases even be higher than the cost of developing a game.
I work in a publishing company for expert handbooks and we have a set budget for creating a handbook and an almost unlimited budget for advertising. If we raised the cost of our handbooks and got more money out of it we would boost the advertising but keep the budget limit for creating the content.
And I can guarantee you that the same thing would happen with EA or any other gaming publisher.

I'm guessing you don't work so you never really have to spend your own money, earned by hard work?

I don't think he does because of this line

Companies keep churning out sequels and rehashes because they know people will buy them. At $50-$60, people can afford to risk the money on a game they don't know much about.

 

[plugav]

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.

But how do you make more money? Not by charging more, but by selling more.

Also, note that the budget is not controlled by developers (unless they're indie) but by publishers. Publishers are usually not interested in making better games, they're interested in making more money. And they're not willing to gamble, they want a sure profit. That's why the biggest budgets usually belong to sequels.

 

[Raioken18]

The TC hasn't taken into account that lots of extra costs are involved.
For example if you own a PC, it requires constant maintenance and upgrades, you already pay for peripherals such as gaming keyboards, mice and screens. For Console gamers it's not much different, those consoles tend to break down quite a lot and there are periperals that need to be taken into account, controllers, new peripherals like motion censors and stuff... It's not exactly cheap even before you get to playing games.

Secondly the cost of gaming in my region (Australia) has increased dramatically, where as during the N64 generation games cost between $40 and $60, most new games cost between $90 and $120, thats a 100% increase in terms of cost.

Also there is another downside to gaming these days, games that require online registration are unrefundable, so you may be paying $120 for something that won't work for you even though you meet the requirements, and in all fairness should be able to get refunded.

When talking about DLC, most complaints are based around the interference it causes to those within the gaming world. Take for example Modern Warfare 2, the DLC divided those able to game together and still experience the same gaming experience by 3. Your friends were seperated from you in an attempt to force you to upgrade. Frankly I have no problem with DLC sales being based around astetics, but when it effects your interactions or in game competition it is disruptive to your experience. There are better ways to release new content and to make a profit than dividing up your players, i.e. Portal 2 DLC is free however it allows you to pay to alter appearances (something irrelevant to your experience of the game).

So all in all, there isn't really an argument for your statement about gamers being cheap.
Pirates are cheap, gamers are not.

 

[Sabiancym]

Because we don't all live in the US/UK and the $60+ price tag isn't as mild to everyone as it is to some people. I know, this doesn't apply to the people living in high income countries, but to some of us, gaming is already quite expensive. We don't want it getting any worse in that regard.

How would it get worse?

$50 for a game that is good?
Or $100 for a game that gives you twice the gameplay and quality?

And that's bottom line. In good game dev houses, a doubling of the budget does not equal double the gameplay. It equals more.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

I remember reading something, possible even on this very site, that explained that games should cost a hell of a lot more and explained exactly why they should cost so much more. A lot of it of course came down to store markups, and if stores didn't demand such a massive price just to stock the thing (which is why downloads cost quite so much less) then the whole indsutry would be healthier, but actually overall we should be paying a lot more than we are, especially for triple A titles like we like.

I generally think that people should remember that games are a privilege not a right, and just because you own a console does not mean that you automatically have some right to own games for the thing. They are all luxury items and if your budget honestly comes down to buying food or games and you seriously consider games first then you are a hopeless cause.

Grow up and realise that in this world if you want something nice you have to pay for it. Books have increased in price as well, but you don't see people whining about that, why? Because they understand that luxury items are just that, luxuries.

I think gaming as a whole needs to grow up, and this is probably the next step.

 

[Sabiancym]

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.

But how do you make more money? Not by charging more, but by selling more.

Also, note that the budget is not controlled by developers (unless they're indie) but by publishers. Publishers are usually not interested in making better games, they're interested in making more money. And they're not willing to gamble, they want a sure profit. That's why the biggest budgets usually belong to sequels.

I know, and I'm not saying there is unlimited room for an increase. But even a $10-15 increase would see a slight physical sales numbers decrease, but that would be more than made up by the extra revenue from the increase in price.