Why are gamers so cheap? Should games cost more?

[gphjr14]

Doesn't really matter if they should cost more since I buy used anyways. Uncharted 3 is the only game I plan on getting new this year. When you factor in DLC and 360 users having to pay for online it evens out, at least for me it does.

 

[plugav]

*snip*

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.

Well, I admit I'm no economist, so I can't argue the math here.

And I guess I shouldn't really care about what they charge for AAA games, since I already can't afford them before they go on sale.

 

[Arehexes]

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.

I would agree but downloads don't cost less

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Portal+2+-+Mac/Windows/2146696.p?id=1218311139568&skuId=2146696&st=portal%202&lp=3&cp=1

http://store.steampowered.com/app/620/

And gaming is not a right, so is driving. I say we raise gas prices so we can have oil companies make better fuel, it only makes since right?

Maybe it's just the XBLA then but I recently bought Halo CE on XBLA for the equivalent of £15 when I bought it in store for £40, and every new release I can see on there I'd be getting for no more than about £20 vs the £40 of a store bought copy. My argument was based on my downloads all costing half of what I would pay for the physical copy, but then I don't use Steam so I admit my argument could be flawed in that respect.

And yes, petrol prices should go up, there's less petrol, more demand for it, and really we should either be paying a lot more for it or researching new methods of moving cars, but since it would take the death of every rich person over the age of about thirty for their to be such a radical change that one's not the same in discussion as a younger industry. Apples and oranges.

When did you buy Halo at the store? And my point was most games that come out now cost the same with a download site or in store. I have never seen many games cheaper on a download site unless it was a sale or the MSRP dropped.

 

[Sgt. Dante]

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.

At about £6 per movie here it's barely bronze standard for entertainment.

to clarify;
1 hour - £1 = Gold Standard
1 hour - £2 = Silver Standard
1 hour - £3 = Bronze Standard.

So at £40 (the cost of most new games in the UK) If you get 20 hours out of it it's only a silver standard experience, and many new games can be beaten comfortably in that time. Very few games offer much more than that, unless they offer a huge game play experience or a comprehensive multiplayer.

TBH, only 2 games would be worth £100 in my books, (2 games with 100ish hours gameplay) Which are FFX and TF2.

 

[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.

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.

Okay, this is where your argument falls to bits.

If publishers could sell games of the current quality for $80 then... well, that's exactly what they would do. They wouldn't have any reason to suddenly start putting out better games.

Also, I assume you're talking in US dollars. Because here is Australia we already pay $80 for our games (and bear in mind that the AUD is equal to the USD at the moment). Hell, sometimes we pay more than that, a new PS3 game costs $110 AUD if you buy retail.

And, y'know, the huge prices haven't spontaneously caused games to increase in quality. Funny that.

Basically, they're out to screw us for as much money as possible. We have to screw back. It's unfortunate, but that's how capitalism works.

What? Who said an $80 game would be exactly the same quality as they are now? That's not even close to what I said.

I said that in order for great games to be made, they should come with a higher price tag. I'm not proposing suddenly increasing the price of games being released in the next couple of months.

 

[katsabas]

Okay, you are setting forward a lot of points.

1) You are being waaaaay too generous with game developers. More money doesn't necessarily translate into better games. Neither would making games cost even more than they do today. Look at Final Fantasy XIV, Resident Evil 5, MGS 4 or Halo ODST.

2) I can't complain about MMOs cause I don't play them. Still, I have electric to pay, telephone and internet. Monthly membership to a game wouldn't do my wallet any good. I am used to paying once for buying a game and that's it. It is not cheap wanting to have light so you can study.

3) The reason DLC is a pain is because it is usually used immediately post-launch and sometimes even announced even before the game is out, mostly for titles that are lacking content (cough MVC3 cough cough). I didn't hear anyone complain about Undead Nightmare, Lair Of The Shadow Broker or Big Surf Island. That's because they were for titles already bursting with hours of content and people were happy to pay for more of that.

The examples you give are not the best. Of the people that own a car on this planet, only a handful of them upgrade their cars. Of course it is expensive. Same with booster packs for card games or miniatures. Instead, gaming is extremely widespread as a hobby when it comes to the groups it is intended for.

 

[Umberjon]

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.

That wasn't an insult and I didn't flame you. I just asked a question.
If you own a company (provided it is going well) you have a lot of money to spend and of course the high price isn't an issue for you.
But not all of us have a lot of money to throw out the window with a couple of games a month.

By the way, you only reacted to the not working thing, have you thought about the bit with the advertising?

 

[ultimateownage]

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.

No they shouldn't. Quality is subjective. It should cost the effort taken to put in it, plus the money needed to not go bankrupt.
And if they cost more, then the 20 hour games will still have just as bad a play time to cost ratio.

 

[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.

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.

Okay, this is where your argument falls to bits.

If publishers could sell games of the current quality for $80 then... well, that's exactly what they would do. They wouldn't have any reason to suddenly start putting out better games.

Also, I assume you're talking in US dollars. Because here is Australia we already pay $80 for our games (and bear in mind that the AUD is equal to the USD at the moment). Hell, sometimes we pay more than that, a new PS3 game costs $110 AUD if you buy retail.

And, y'know, the huge prices haven't spontaneously caused games to increase in quality. Funny that.

Basically, they're out to screw us for as much money as possible. We have to screw back. It's unfortunate, but that's how capitalism works.

What? Who said an $80 game would be exactly the same quality as they are now? That's not even close to what I said.

I said that in order for great games to be made, they should come with a higher price tag. I'm not proposing suddenly increasing the price of games being released in the next couple of months.

Corrected me if I'm wrong but aren't most devs is they have a publisher are paid before making a game. I believe it's a base pay + royalties but mostly it's the publish who gets the biggest cut (That's what the Infinity Ward thing was about if I recall). Also what will quilify as a "good game"? I bought Gears of Wars 2, and it can last forever with multiplayer and is very high in production values, but to me it's not that good of a game. I have more fun playing my DS then my consoles or PC so should I pay 60 dollars for a 30 dollar DS game because I feel it's better. See I hear you saying quality in a game but that's in the eye of the gamer now. I think Battlefield Bad Company 2 is more enjoyable then Call of Duty Black Ops, and how can you measure which one has "more" quality to warrant the high price tag. Should it be the user reviews, the pro reviews, the money dumped into it? There is no way to measure the quality to make a flat price all users have to pay. If I paid 100 USD for Gears Of War 2 because it's priced higher and was to be "better" and hated it (which I do honestly) I would feel ripped off.

 

[Sabiancym]

They want to charge more money, lets see some games worth the $100 they charge for them.

Exactly. Let's see them.


That's what no one is taking into account. Everyone thinks I'm proposing charging $80 for Call of Duty. That's not at all what I said. I said that in order to get some truly amazing games, we're going to need to pay more. There is never going to an epic RPG made that has hundreds or thousands of fully voiced AI characters each who have their own personalities and daily routines if they can only charge $50-60 for the game.

If we want that game to be made, we're going to have to pay more. No it won't happen overnight, it will be a gradual increase in quality and price, but staying at the same price point will only allow for technological advances. Things like design teams and grunt work will need extra revenue.

Tech can only go so far. In order to make a really great game you need to be able to pay people to go over ever square inch of the game.

 

[deth2munkies]

We are so cheap for one reason and one reason only: We started gaming as kids.

Sure, there are few and far between exceptions to the rule, but almost any gamer who plays something past Farmville or Angry Birds started playing as a kid who had very limited income, whether it be relying on an allowance or on birthday presents.

While our income grew, our conception of how much a game should cost did not, and with rising industry prices and the growing need to squeeze every dollar out of things that used to be free, people aren't happy.

 

[Arehexes]

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.

That wasn't an insult and I didn't flame you. I just asked a question.
If you own a company (provided it is going well) you have a lot of money to spend and of course the high price isn't an issue for you.
But not all of us have a lot of money to throw out the window with a couple of games a month.

By the way, you only reacted to the not working thing, have you thought about the bit with the advertising?

Odds are he didn't =D, seems to be more insulted at people who doesn't want to agree with him and is acting hostile (I mean really if he said I'm hostile he is to saying what he said to your question lol). Oh yeah welcome to The Escapist Umberjon.

 

[RoBi3.0]

Games are too expensive. That's pretty much fact.
The only reason developers don't make a huge increase is because a majority of sales go into used games. Make it illegal for retailers to sell used products from their initial distributors, and that will be solved.

No thank you.

For one the government (USA) has a hard time paying its bills now without have to front the costs for monitoring and enforcing such a law.

Second, it is none of the governments business what I do with property that I have bought and paid for and that is rightfully mine to do with what I please.

Third, video games as have been pointed out are one of the most cost effective forms of entertainment on the market today.

The game industry needs to build long lasting value into game if they don't like the resale market. Or make it more appealing to buy new. Project 10 dollar is a wonderful program IMO, because it encourages people to buy new but doesn't force them to. I think people appreciate having a choice.

Further more I would venture a guess that killing the used game market will drive up piracy. at least with the used market through "project $10" plans the industry can make some money on it. The Industry makes on money on piracy.

The current costs of games is just fine. Simply throwing out money isn't going to automatically lead to better games. What will lead to better games is not buying the crappy ones. I am not really sure why the OP feels the game industry in such trouble the the only way to save it is boosting the price of games. Video games is a billion dollar business. The industry is making money hand over fist.

I can't agree with you on project $10 because I feel it does force you into it. A game like Need for Speed Hot Pursuit boasts it's social network like system to play with others, if you don't buy it new you can't get that feature. Kinda sounds like your being forced if you ask me. But besides that I agree with you

Look I don't know anything about Need For Speed Hot Pursuit. What I was referring too was project $10 plans like the Cerberus code where if you bought ME2 new you got the code included. If you bought it used you had the option of buying the code as DLC. EA did some similar with DA: O. That was what I was referring. Buy new incentive plans that offer features that can not obtained any other way is a dick move and really does nothing to make money off the used market.

 

[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.

No they shouldn't. Quality is subjective. It should cost the effort taken to put in it, plus the money needed to not go bankrupt.
And if they cost more, then the 20 hour games will still have just as bad a play time to cost ratio.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Only charging enough to not go bankrupt? No for profit business in the world has that policy.

 

[Harbinger_]

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.

To me unless the game has shown lots of replay value, has a long and in depth single player mode, is in an interesting world and seems slightly to completely different than other games I don't even consider buying it for 25 dollars much less anything above that.

This means that I have no interest of course in most first person shooters or sports games or RTS games. Also I avoid video games based on movies out of principal that it takes so much money to get the license that not alot of budget is left for the game itself. If the game is a sequel or prequel to a game that I wasn't interested in I avoid that as well.

 

[Arehexes]

They want to charge more money, lets see some games worth the $100 they charge for them.

Exactly. Let's see them.


That's what no one is taking into account. Everyone thinks I'm proposing charging $80 for Call of Duty. That's not at all what I said. I said that in order to get some truly amazing games, we're going to need to pay more. There is never going to an epic RPG made that has hundreds or thousands of fully voiced AI characters each who have their own personalities and daily routines if they can only charge $50-60 for the game.

If we want that game to be made, we're going to have to pay more. No it won't happen overnight, it will be a gradual increase in quality and price, but staying at the same price point will only allow for technological advances. Things like design teams and grunt work will need extra revenue.

Tech can only go so far. In order to make a really great game you need to be able to pay people to go over ever square inch of the game.

And if it is raised in price for lets say 90USD how do we know that everyone will love it. You can't really measure quality to a price point, I mean we can have a game cost 100USD but that doesn't mean it will be great. Could you explain that?

 

[idarkphoenixi]

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.

No...Just no. If big games cost that much they would be EXACTLY the same, and the extra profit would go simply go directly into the pockets of the CEO's etc...

The fact of the matter is that games are expensive now, and if gamers didn't stand up for themselves when a developer tries to milk them for that little bit extra theres no telling where we would end up.

You need to understand that most developers don't really care about the quality of their product, its a business and they want money. Making an epic game with everything someone could ever want is one way. But its so much easier to take the more direct route and simply find ways to charge people more for what they're used to now. Its far more cost effective.
DLC and "special editions" seems to be the primary methods and people should NOT pay for those because in most cases its nothing short of a scam.

 

[Pirate1019]

It's just that the best games should cost more to increase the quality.

You're funny. This is funny. I smell massive bias and am starting to suspect that it's slanting your ability to understand reason.

"So with the extra profit from MSRP'ing our last game at $80, we have like 30 jillion extra dollars to spend on our next game. What should we do? We could tweak the game engine to increase performance, hire better voice actors next time, or develop some prototypes for new and interesting games that people haven't played before."

"Or we could set aside 10% and tell the code monkeys to stuff more gigapixels into our next Call of Duty clone and go take a vacation in the Bahamas."

 

[the D0rk One]

No, they complain because they are jaded and comparing the game to the best of the best.

Now see, this is bullshit. Imho.

Some prick said this a while ago, during a war between "retro" and contemporary gamers. And most people picked it up and believed it without trying to think it through.

This statement only does harm to the industry and to those few devs who genuinely want to make great games.

Seeing the difference between Wolfenstein 3D and Halo gameplay is not being jaded, nor is it not adapting to trends. It's a gamer feeling entitled to tell devs he apreciated health bars and extra lives, levels designed to house this kind of gameplay, and not being afraid of a chalenge and/or being shown he's wrong sometimes.

I'm not saying Halo is shit and it didn't add nothing to video games, I'm just saying it's a new concept which, in my eyes, has it pros and cons when compared against the "old school shooters".

I'm old enough to have experienced almost the whole of it, from 8-bit to HD, from Wolfenstein 3D to CoD:BO, from Ultima (1) to DA2.

I give them all credit, as much as I, the gamer, sees fit.

It is true that some mediocre games released today are better than some mediocre games from the 16-bit era, but they are better only because they have the tech to look better. That's it. Tech evolved, tech priced dropped and any studio today can afford tech (and sometimes talent) which back in the day was affordable only to top-dog devs.

Sorry about the rant, but the Troll is hungry. Also, ignoring the Troll and its tantrums, I hope you'll prove me wrong and convince me I'm a jaded nostalgic blind to the gold plating on all current-gen mediocre games. No, really.

 

[MetalDooley]

Maybe it's just the XBLA then but I recently bought Halo CE on XBLA for the equivalent of £15 when I bought it in store for £40, and every new release I can see on there I'd be getting for no more than about £20 vs the £40 of a store bought copy. My argument was based on my downloads all costing half of what I would pay for the physical copy, but then I don't use Steam so I admit my argument could be flawed in that respect.

Are you using the same XBLA I am?New releases costing half of what they do in-store?Really??In my experience it's the other way round with store bought games being cheaper than XBLA in the majority of cases.Here's an example

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-IE/Product/Fallout-New-Vegas/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d802425307e0 Fallout:New Vegas is ?49.99 on XBL.It cost me ?29.99 brand new in store