Why are gamers so cheap? Should games cost more?

[Magicman10893]

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

That's because everything in Australia is pretty much shipped from around the world as opposed to being made there, but to cover this, people in Australia generally make more money. I remember my teacher was talking about how his fiancée lived in Australia for a while and she made a lot more money per hour there to cover the higher cost of living.

 

[Lunar Templar]

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.

and thus 'the great and powerful Trixy' has spoken XD
(quoted for truth, for those not in on the joke)

though i would like to point out, it doesn't seem like a lot of developers are 'working that hard' for their dollar, since damn near every release look the same as what just came out a week ago (but I'm also finicky gamer to)

 

[Imat]

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.

There are several reasons why that is a bad example: They were released in different years, I'm assuming they've had at least 1 engine change, hiring/firing employees, hiring/firing contractors, more time spent of graphics, etc.

The different years thing means that employees will be getting smaller/larger paychecks for the same work, the cost of marketing/distributing the product will change, inflation, etc.

The engine change means they either have to rebuild their own engine or pay for a new engine, both of which take extra time and money. I'm fairly certain Black Ops does not run on the same engine as CoD1, though I could be wrong.

Employees and contractors are being hired and fired as the series progresses, which changes overall wages paid out.

Graphics: This is probably the largest part of the production process. Creating the graphics is a large and incredibly time-consuming process, which means it also costs a lot of money. They certainly did not use the same graphics for Black Ops as for CoD1, and that has held true for nearly every iteration of the series. Which means each project requires more time and money than the last just to get the graphics up to date.

But none of that means the game is actually any better. It may look better, but that does not mean it is better. They could double their expenses trying to make it look better, then use the same code as the previous game. Nothing improved gameplay wise.

 

[JMeganSnow]

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.

I don't think gamers in general are cheap. I think there is a loud, vocal minority of entitled twits who see games as their personal playground and game companies as money-grubbing vampires. I certainly see this in my MMO, which is free-to-play but has a LOT of exclusive pay-to-play content. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard people griping in general chat that "they weren't going to give Turbine a cent" even if it meant grinding favor for weeks in order to get the stuff they wanted with the freebie points.

I do not get this mentality. Servers cost money. Development teams cost money. Yeah, Turbine's not a perfect company, but if you despise them so much, why do you want to play their game to begin with?

I think a lot of it comes from people seeing the game not as Turbine's product which they have graciously allowed you to play free (and hope you will voluntarily pay for so they can eat and live indoors and keep their servers running), but as THEIR game which they grudgingly allow those bastards at Turbine to operate for them.

I've seen this attitude all over the internet, though. People have the same reaction when they get moderated on internet forums (That's censorship! It's MY forum and I'll say whatever I damn well please!), when their work forbids them from sending personal texts on their company phone (it's MY phone and I'll text whatever I damn well please!) you get the picture. Those of us who have a clear, adult concept of property instead of a child's view that "anything I can get my hands on is MINE MINE MINE" don't have this issue. And we're happy to trade money to the people who give us fun stuff.

 

[Zantos]

There are people who work for publishers who specialise in certain branches of economics who's job is to work out how much each game should cost and when that cost should lower so that they can maximise sales. Seriously, I'd just leave them to it, they know a lot more than most of us do about it.

 

[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.

I meant not going bankrupt through running out of money when developing other games. The money should go to the cost of making the game and future games, and not to line people's wallets. Which it currently does.

You don't seem to understand the point of business....the whole point of it is to line people's pockets. That's kinda why people have jobs...

 

[Omega Pirate]

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.

That's the dilemma I faced when I got a part time job in high school. If I worked I could have the money to buy games, but not have the time to play them. If I didn't work the opposite was true. As a compromise I just saved up some money and quit working. So I only bought games on sales or used, which gave me the time to play them.

Even if you increase the price of the games do you think people will pay that price? People will pay what they want to pay, if they can't they won't buy the games. Or they will get it by other means.

 

[Sabiancym]

If big games were $80, the quality and depth would skyrocket.

False. If big games were $80 investors would be richer. We have seen over the last 20 years of 'uber capitalism' how increasing price does not automatically make for a better product. Especially in this industry where big name studios have a near monopoly.

False? Just false? Where's your proof that that would happen?

Look at the increased depth of games in the past 10 years. Then look at the companies involved in those games and their revenue. As their revenue goes up, so does the quality of their games.

Just because you say it's false does not make it so. It's not a prediction I'm making, it's already being done.

 

[Sabiancym]

There are people who work for publishers who specialise in certain branches of economics who's job is to work out how much each game should cost and when that cost should lower so that they can maximise sales. Seriously, I'd just leave them to it, they know a lot more than most of us do about it.

Your point? The post was about whether or not we as gamers should be willing to pay more. Not whether or not game companies should decide to start charging us more.

 

[Trolldor]

I lol'd.

At $110, games are not cheap.
In fact, $60 isn't cheap either, not when a game is only likely to last you a single weekend. Compared to most other hobbies, gaming is actually really very quite expensive.

 

[Callate]

I've wondered- or, rather, been bemused and frustrated by this- myself. Not so much wondered; one rarely has to put much speculation into why people don't want to spend more money.

Still, a few things to consider. On a dollars-to-entertainment-hours ratio, a typical novel is still a better deal than a typical video game. But time spent on an entertainment isn't simply a benefit; it's also an investment. Even a fairly long movie doesn't take as long to play as even a relatively short video game, but one feels less cheated for spending two hours and $10 with a mediocre-to-bad movie than $50 spending ten hours on a mediocre-to-bad video game because the longer time investment didn't "pay off" as well as hoped. So some people offset the risk of their "time investment" by not wanting to make as much of a financial one.

Then there's the "fixed in time" effect; the price of games really hasn't changed as much as it probably should have, even as we've gone from one-man games on the Atari 2600 to hundred-person teams on the latest HD efforts. As the gaming audience gets older, so does the market have to deal with expectations that are based on the sometimes decades-long game experiences of the audience.

And then there's the joy of "because we can! Ha!" Game rentals, used games, Moore's Law, stock shift- if you want to game on the cheap right now, it's very easy to do so, especially if you're willing to show some patience and/or compromise slightly on your expectations of a game (that is, not demand a machine-stretching top-of-the-line experience from every new game you put in your machine.) Don't want to pay full price to experience the love/hate relationship your peers have with Brink? Wait for the Steam holiday sale. There's a mass of iPhone games, free Flash games, offerings on GOG, and even free older games that can easily keep you occupied until December. Heck, you can get Daggerfall for free now, and thoroughly exploring that puppy could take you until even Brink made it onto Good Old Games' rosters.

This is not to say all of this is good, of course; I've said before that I think we're headed for another crash of the industry, and some of "our" foibles are very much to blame. The fact is that right now not only can we be petulant spoiled brats towards our favorite industry, but we'll sometimes be rewarded for doing so, as anyone who's only bought a product after it received its final patch can attest. We're well-buffered from any negative effects of our impossible expectations of the industry.

If nothing else, AAA-gaming may have to die a sad death before we realize just how good we had it.

 

[Zantos]

There are people who work for publishers who specialise in certain branches of economics who's job is to work out how much each game should cost and when that cost should lower so that they can maximise sales. Seriously, I'd just leave them to it, they know a lot more than most of us do about it.

Your point? The post was about whether or not we as gamers should be willing to pay more. Not whether or not game companies should decide to start charging us more.

I'm saying it's a very delicate balance they've worked out, not the sort of thing we should be messing with. They know their consumer base and have thought very long and hard about this.

Besides, games are already expensive. I know from personal experience that with prices as they are now they're running dangerously close to cutting out a good portion of their kids and students demographic. It's a lot to lose just for a little extra wonga per sale. Then there's the Australian market and other countries with ludicrous mark ups. The industry is being very careful not to overprice themselves and lose their market.

 

[icaritos]

20 years old. University student. Dirty poor.

Does that answer your question?

 

[scar_47]

The 60 dollar price point seems pretty fair especially considering the fact that a lot of these game reuse tech from previous ones along with the fact that a lot of these games can be relatively short making the cost per hour played rather high. I would be willing to pony up more money if it meant I'd get more rather that be a more polished game or more content but just paying more guarantees nothing except that I'm paying more. And the comment on system dev costs being only 30-50 dollars above the price point is way off the ps3 sold at a 300 dollar loss the 360 was around 250.

 

[Ravenbom]

Because the majority of gamers are kids too young or who don't have a job.

Yes, this is the majority of gamers. Probably not the typical gamer we see on forums. Look at the stupid Transformers movies. If you thought all Transformers fans were what you found on forums, you'd think the movies would have made maybe 10 million dollars because they were very vociferously hated on most nerdy forums.
But that's not true at all. In fact, probably 90% of the people that saw those movies didn't go into forums to complain about them later.


Even though the gaming demographic is growing older, it's still true that the majority of the demographic is pointed at kids without jobs.
So of course they're cheap.

 

[DolorousEdd]

Most gamers are young, teenagers, still in education or apprenticeship. The hardware is something like the single most expensive product after a car. The next most expensive things are the games themselves. They're an absolute luxury. What's more, most of them are stupid, shallow, redundant and short. If games would be more expensive, they certainly wouldn't be better. They wouldn't even sell more (freaking expensive, duh), but it might just get balanced with the higher prices. So you'd pay more money.... just because. Good topic.

 

[Treblaine]

If big games were $80, the quality and depth would skyrocket.

No, each game may cost 33% more but sales would easily fall by more than 25% because that is such an unaffordable price, so the publishers would make LESS money!

How filthy rich are you that you can blow $100 just like that?!? What if the game is shit? What if you bought a different game than your friend, what you want to buy more than 1 or 2 games per year!

Movies consistently cost MORE than games to make yet they break even with cheaper ticket and DVD prices... how? By selling to MORE PEOPLE!!

Perfect example that utterly DECIMATES your flawed logic is Steam, how much money Valves makes from their massive sales:

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=22378

"When Valve held its recent holiday sale, titles discounted by 10 percent (the minimum) they saw revenue (not unit) increases of 35 percent. At a 25 percent discount, revenue was up 245 percent.

At 50 percent off, revenue was up 320 percent, and at a 75 percent discount, revenue was up an astonishing 1470 percent. Newell stressed again that those revenue boosts represent actual revenue dollars, and not unit volumes."

Can you comprehend a 1470% increase in MONEY! Not units, but cold hard CASH! That is over FIFTEEN TIMES AS MUCH! This means

[HEADING=2]

Sell a good game for $40 = make $150'000

Sell the same game for $10 = make $2'250'000 !!!![/HEADING]


Now PC games are ALREADY cheaper than Console games due to lack of platform licensing fee, but this clearly shows that developers make more money by selling their games CHEAPER!

It is GRADE SCHOOL LOGIC that you make more money by selling unlimited luxury services at a higher price. Set the price too high and people will. not. buy.

I'm never have paid $100 for Team Fortress 2, who the hell would!?!? It is just one game, what if it turns out to have no lasting appeal?

Pile it high, sell it cheap: make billions

Milk each user for every dollar: fail as a company

 

[Wintermoot]

I don,t think so companies would still produce shitty games but they would cost more (although I wouldn't mind paying more for games I know are going to be good like stuff from Bethesda or Valve soft)

 

[foodmaniac]

Honestly, Americans only have to pay $60 for games. In Australia, we pay over $100 for our new games, which may have been fair enough back when the American dollar was stronger than ours, but nowadays, that's absolute crap. Either Australians should only have to pay $60 (the better option), or Americans should have to start paying higher.

 

[Laser Priest]

Gamers generally appear to feel that the industry owes them something.

Still, the industry doesn't seem to even remotely be in danger, so price increases come across as more of a dick move on the companies part than anything.