Support NeoGAF

[ErrorMacro]

It's naive to think that the bad practices would stop just because games became more expensive. What would happen? Such practices would (maybe) stop for 2 months, and then publishers would notice that they could get even more money if they had more expensive games + bad practices.

 

[The Lamonster]

Isn't this what collector's editions are for? Cheap-ass plastic statue, season pass and BOOM, you're paying one hundo for a game.

 

[megalowho]

Pricing could definitely stand to be more flexible in both directions, it used to be in the 16-bit era days. Though if a higher price up front just ends up being in addition to the preorder exclusive/piecemeal DLC/F2P mechanics publishers use to offset development costs now, it's not worth it. Don't think this industry has the self control or confidence in their products to put all of the development costs in the MSRP at this time.

 

[SeanTSC]

Tell us how you really feel

I feel that this article is stupid and doesn't do any actual research on what games have been sold this generation and what actual DLC they have. I made a list of every single PS4 game that I own in another thread detailing out their DLC.

I own 91 PS4 games. 61 have no DLC (or Free only DLC). 4 have Microtransactions and 2 of those 4 have DLC. 26 more have just DLC.

The only ones that have any "chopped up" feeling at all like the second pic are the Ubisoft titles (surprise!) and Dynasty Warriors. Most of the rest of them have offerings like the first pic with Expansion Packs.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=161012449&postcount=124

I think it'd be pretty horrible for me if game developers suddenly raised their prices, because most of the people I buy from don't actually do DLC. Yes, I realize the 61 is slightly skewed by Remasters.

 

[Lng0004]

Games should just be better.
DLC should just be better.
Period.

I think the only DLCs I've ever paid for are Rock Band packs.

 

[jelly]

I don't think the comparison with food and other products makes a lot of sense. All the ingredients of Oreo's get more expensive because of inflation, and as a result Oreo's need to get more expensive as well. Absolutely, development costs have increased for AAA titles, but getting the game from the developer to the consumer has never been this cheap.

Digital distribution and Blu-rays are extremely cheap. Compare that to cartridges that used to cost anywhere from $15-$30 each. If developers would increase the price of games they would (1) lose a lot of money, because people would buy less games, and shipping a few additional copies is very cheap anyway, and (2) consumers would have to pay more to get the same game. Everyone loses.

I can't exactly make the jump from 'if games were more expensive there would be less DLC' either. DLC didn't exist in the past because game systems didn't support such functionality. That's it. Companies will keep on making DLC because it's easy money for them, increasing the price of games will not change that.

This.

 

[Meier]

Books still cost about the same. CDs still cost about the same (less really), movie tickets certainly don't, but home video still costs about the same.

You can increase food prices because people require it. Things that are entirely disposable have far less flexibility. I know for me personally, I just don't buy Oreos any more. I cut things out of my life that increase their prices exponentially.

 

[Kenzodielocke]

Games should just be better. Period.

Okay, so they're no good games anymore you are saying ?

 

[spliced]

Next gen will be a Colbert Platinum exclusive.

Seriously though some of the stuff making games so expensive didn't hardly exist before so just cut those things back out of the budget.

 

[Prime crotch]

There's some truth in it, but the userbase has increased exponentially too, the nickel and dime is both an effort to make back budget but also to simply gouge as much as they can from a full price game. So while a more flexible price would help, the publisher companies would still try to get that short-term benefit as hard as they could. Let's be honest, game's prices tend to crash down a lot post-release, so it's all a strategy to get that release window.

 

[tearsintherain]

Don't a lot more people buy big games now than in the past? Whereas in the 90s selling 1m copies of a game was considered insane, now thats a low bar and 5m or more copies is considered ok, with the big games getting 20m+ in the first year.

I think publishers and devs are having the 2 treats problem my dog has. They know they can do pretty good if they just sell a game and maybe a small DLC a few months down the road. Buuuuut... if they slice up the game a little bit more, and put out a deluxe edition, and season passes, and retailer exclusives, and CEs, and LEs, etc, etc they can get that little extra more money. And people seem ok with all that, so why not push the envelope just a little more and make a little more money with microtransactions and buy to win items...

DA:I, Evolve, and MK:X have all been interesting this year. DAI released with no DLC shenanigans and sold pretty well, not insane but I assume everyone is happy with sales. Evolve seems to have gotten horrible backlash and not sold that great. As far as I can tell MK X though has pretty much the same content strategy as Evolve (lots of costumes for outrageous prices) and hardly anyone has said a thing, and the game seems to be selling really well.

I despise all the DLC crap and have pretty much reverted to buying simple base game and rarely bother with DLC stuff anymore, it rarely ends up being worth the extra cost. I hope more people start doing that too.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

I'm sorry but no.

£55 average for a new retail game is expensive. Higher prices will ensure less people buy games. DLC, MT's and season passes work because the cost can be spread. You can enter for more at any point or never, as your situation dictates. Raising the RRP means raising the price of entry, and that is very much bad for everyone, publishers included.

 

[QuickSilverD]

I would actually acknowledge his opinion if he wasn't a supporter of Gamergate. His status and influence makes such a position problematic.

I find this post problematic.

 

[Solid Samus]

as a PC gamer most of the games I want to play don't need to be more expensive because the staples of my hardware of choice aren't front loaded exercises in dumping flaming money into an endless pit, hoping that onlookers might take a gander, circle round, maybe buy a few shirts and drinks from concession stands while they're there

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

I think they're scared of sticker shock.

I say fuck that, raise it to $65 if that's what it takes to not feel like i'm getting nickled and dimed to death.

When i was but a wee lad, i paid over $80 at a Best Buy for Ocarina of Time, all of it came from my crappy McD's job i worked at while in high school. Kids are spoiled these days.

There's an alternative though. Go back to the PS2 era financial model of lower production quality and smaller sales expectation. This keeps being ignored as an option, probably because no publisher wants to be the first to try it.

 

[spekkeh]

Don't a lot more people buy big games now than in the past? Whereas in the 90s selling 1m copies of a game was considered insane, now thats a low bar and 5m or more copies is considered ok, with the big games getting 20m+ in the first year.

Yes that could offset the bigger development costs before inflation.

I'm sorry but no.

£55 average for a new retail game is expensive. Higher prices will ensure less people buy games. DLC, MT's and season passes work because the cost can be spread. You can enter for more at any point or never, as your situation dictates. Raising the RRP means raising the price of entry, and that is very much bad for everyone, publishers included.

Isn't that kind of the point of the article?

 

[anexanhume]

It's about finding the optimal point of entry for a majority of consumers, then letting your most ardent supporters "subsidize" all the players by paying the most for DLC. I think the current system can work well in theory, but retailer exclusives and publisher shadiness about DLC practices can go to hell.

 

[Meier]

I have 61 PS4 games with 0 DLC, so kindly fuck off. Not one of them has any business being more expensive.

I have 30 PS4 games with DLC (4 of which have Microtransactions) and none of those really feel like they've been cut apart to be sold in pieces. Content expansion DLC is good. Half of those are just very minor cosmetic DLC at that without any "content" DLC sold extra. If that's how they want to make money without charging me more, then fine.

Stop buying shitty games from developers that make you feel like they've sliced apart the game.

You...have 91 PS4 games? Wow. Does this include freebies from PSN? I didn't even realize that many PS4 games had been released, frankly.

Think I've got..4 games despite owning it since day 1. Maybe I'm at 3...

 

[Swass]

Isn't the audience far greater than it was back in the day. So while you may only be charging $10 more per game, you are selling far more copies which means you are making far more money?

Besides I think you raise the price any further and people will buy fewer games which will lead to more studios closing and even far less choice. I don't think that's the road we want the industry to continue to head down.

 

[vagabondarts]

For the fuck sake. 80$ ?!

There were Snes and n64 games priced at $79.99... All those years ago.

 

[Frog-fu]

Seeing how the RRP of games in the UK have risen £5-£10 now as they were last gen. We're already feeling it, and we're still getting nickel and dimed.

This. It's ridiculous that we're paying more and get nothing out of it.

 

[Grief.exe]

I have 61 PS4 games with 0 DLC, so kindly fuck off. Not one of them has any business being more expensive.

I have 30 PS4 games with DLC (4 of which have Microtransactions) and none of those really feel like they've been cut apart to be sold in pieces. Content expansion DLC is good. Half of those are just very minor cosmetic DLC at that without any "content" DLC sold extra. If that's how they want to make money without charging me more, then fine.

Stop buying shitty games from developers that make you feel like they've sliced apart the game.

You're probably going to pass up my Steam library this year. I've had an account for a decade.

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

There's an alternative though. Go back to the PS2 era financial model of lower production quality and smaller sales expectation. This keeps being ignored as an option, probably because no publisher wants to be the first to try it.

that pretty much describes the entire indie scene, no?

 

[JohnnyFootball]

He's primarily commenting about this picture which is often used by people to complain about the industry today:

I REALLY and I do mean REALLY hate this picture, because it is such an absurd ridiculous exaggeration and is more or less an outright LIE.

Most games still do get the burger. In case like ME3, the cheese and maybe a few condiments are missing, but I would easily argue that in most cases we get something far close to the image on the left side and the right.

 

[tokkun]

Disagree. To me it seems very obvious from the past 5 years that what the market needed was price discrimination. This is why we see huge success in F2P, rock-bottom Steam sales driving long tails, and yes, the proliferation of DLC.

You can try raising the base price to $80, but unless that is followed by rapid price cuts, you are going to be swimming against the tide.

 

[BriareosGAF]

Video games are not physically manufactured goods whose constituent parts consitute the bulk of their expense--their marginal cost of goods is miniscule on a per unit basis. In the past this marginal cost of production has counter-balanced the growth in costs because the market has been expanding, and unit purchases for software along with that. Over the last several years however the market growth for AAA is somewhat stagnant, so revenue/cost tension has become increased. At the same time the market for non-AAA games did a strange loop, and in the process convinced the wider market that games software should have commodity pricing (0.99 games).

Expansions/DLCs/F2P/etc are all attempts to bridge this given the lack of appetite for high costs on the base product, and the fear that it would cause market growth to stall even more. Market growth and anticipated revenue drive share prices, generally.

NB: I don't speak for my employer, just personal thoughts.

 

[MaximusPayne]

The last DLC where I thought I got my money's worth on a game where I thought I got my money's worth was Red Dead Redemption. Dat Undead Nightmare!

 

[SeanTSC]

You...have 91 PS4 games? Wow. Does this include freebies from PSN? I didn't even realize that many PS4 games had been released, frankly.

Think I've got..4 games despite owning it since day 1. Maybe I'm at 3...

Yeah, it includes the PS+ games, but I actually bought a few of them (like Strider) before they went up on PS+. I never "wait" on a game to be on PS+ if I really want it.

 

[Tripon]

If U.S. game prices rises to $70 or $80, expect Canadian prices to rise $100 or even more.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

that pretty much describes the entire indie scene, no?

It describes the direction the indie scene is headed in, certainly.

 

[Kouriozan]

I already see new games at 70€ and it scares me everytime.
I know it's the usual "Europe get screwed on prices", but anything higher than 60 is really really expensive.
I'm really glad 3DS/Wii U games are cheap.

 

[Stone Ocean]

There's an alternative though. Go back to the PS2 era financial model of lower production quality and smaller sales expectation. This keeps being ignored as an option, probably because no publisher wants to be the first to try it.

Ubisoft - of all fucking publishers - has been dabbling with mid budget stuff for a while now. It's just that these publishers have gotten too big to live off these types of titles.

I'd imagine without stuff like Assassin's Creed they'd need to downsize biiiig time.

 

[schaft0620]

The video game industry would raise the price of the game and still pull the same shit with the DLC.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Isn't that kind of the point of the article?

No? The point is that they should go up because of inflation? Did we read different articles?

 

[HF2014]

He can kiss my ass. Games today cost 2 time more than before. With all these dlc, micropurchase, season pass, a 60$ game now end up costing 120$. This is probably the reason im not giving my money to most games that have dlc. If at least it was something that was develop later on, now DLC are now develop when they make the game and plan to get release in advanced, and something it just insulting to see that the dlc is already on the disk! I was kinda shoxk to get Fantasy Life the other day, and the dlc i can buy is already on the cartridge, your just paying to unlock the content....

Increase gaming price? No way ...

 

[scitek]

I think they're scared of sticker shock.

I say fuck that, raise it to $65 if that's what it takes to not feel like i'm getting nickled and dimed to death.

When i was but a wee lad, i paid over $80 at a Best Buy for Ocarina of Time, all of it came from my crappy McD's job i worked at while in high school. Kids are spoiled these days.

Yeah, games were ridiculously overpriced then. They're just overpriced now.

 

[Lasthope106]

Did the author of the article fail to understand that the gaming audience has expanded significantly. You have games selling 10+ million today. I don't think that was the case back in the day.

 

[Pie and Beans]

Market won't support it. Theres a psychological barrier and nowhere moreso than the UK showcases that.

You can say "but inflation", but when you're listing dollar menu items and so forth its ignoring the sheer height of £50-£55 already.

Another elephant in the room is digital prices that don't factor in a complete lack of physical production and transport as well as the buyer losing any re-sell ability.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Ubisoft - of all fucking publishers - has been dabbling with mid budget stuff for a while now. It's just that these publishers have gotten too big to live off these types of titles.

I'd imagine without stuff like Assassin's Creed they'd need to downsize biiiig time.

Yep, Ubisoft is a good example: Blood Dragon, Rayman, Child of Light, etc. But I don't know if they could survive a transition to a model centered around those kinds of projects.

The only big publisher that I believe could is Nintendo.

 

[Elandyll]

He makes an interesting argument (that if Publishers were "allowed" to charge $80+ for their games, they wouldn't nickel and dime the consumers to death with DLC, expansion packs and microtransations of various kind), but a faulty one imo.

If Publishers could get away with charging $80, they would, and still would nickel and dime the consumer to death.

I don't necessarily see a problem in maintaining a certain level of pricing down based on what the consumer expects to pay for a videogame (around $50-$60, with $70 being the high end right now with some "deluxe" features) and providing options with DLC, rather than bumping the price $10 or more and including said options (costume/ weapon), whether you're interested in these or not.

 

[Pinko Marx]

Haha, yeah, I'm sure that if prices were to be higher for the base game companies would stop gouging on DLC.

Because they're generous.

Exactly this. We don't get nickled and dimed because games are expensive to make. They do because they want as much money as possible.
People just need to stop falling for their bullcrap.

 

[SeanTSC]

I REALLY and I do mean REALLY hate this picture, because it is such an absurd ridiculous exaggeration and is more or less an outright LIE.

Most games still do get the burger. In case like ME3, the cheese and maybe a few condiments are missing, but I would easily argue that in most cases we get something far close to the image on the left side and the right.

Yes, that picture righteously infuriates me, because it's not even remotely indicative of the actual current state of the industry and DLC. Most of the games that I have with DLC are like the left pic. The only ones even close to the right pic are the Ubisoft titles and it's more like they're just missing the Lettuce. Then there's Dynasty Warriors which should basically have 75 pieces of lettuce surrounding the picture.

 

[TheSpoiler]

DA:I, Evolve, and MK:X have all been interesting this year. DAI released with no DLC shenanigans and sold pretty well, not insane but I assume everyone is happy with sales. Evolve seems to have gotten horrible backlash and not sold that great. As far as I can tell MK X though has pretty much the same content strategy as Evolve (lots of costumes for outrageous prices) and hardly anyone has said a thing, and the game seems to be selling really well.

I despise all the DLC crap and have pretty much reverted to buying simple base game and rarely bother with DLC stuff anymore, it rarely ends up being worth the extra cost. I hope more people start doing that too.

How hard is it for people to verify this shit? It's not even remotely similar. There are 4 packs, each containing 4 costumes. With every DLC drop, they give you a free skin unrelated to those packs.

This isn't even remotely close to the strategy that Evolve has set in place. The reason why people aren't discussing it is because most people realize it's a kneejerk reaction.

Yes, that picture righteously infuriates me, because it's not even remotely indicative of the actual current state of the industry and DLC. Most of the games that I have with DLC are like the left pic. The only ones even close to the right pic are the Ubisoft titles and it's more like they're just missing the Lettuce. Then there's Dynasty Warriors which should basically have 75 pieces of lettuce surrounding the picture.

I don't even fully agree with the DW thing. Costume wise, it's already comparable to the previous games. This is just adding more, although the pricing is absolutely silly.

It's a case by case basis with DLC. Trying to shove it all in one train is unfair and being overly cynical (not saying that's what you are doing, just some of the commentary here is getting to that point).

 

[Intheflorsh]

Erik Kain really says some bizarre things.

 

[Slaythe]

official europeans price is 70 euros..

how is that acceptable for a 5 hours long campaign à la COD. Most games budget are spent on marketing...

 

[……forgetit]

I REALLY and I do mean REALLY hate this picture, because it is such an absurd ridiculous exaggeration and is more or less an outright LIE.

Most games still do get the burger. In case like ME3, the cheese and maybe a few condiments are missing, but I would easily argue that in most cases we get something far close to the image on the left side and the right.

It really is a dumb picture. I don't think I've ever bought a game where I needed the DLC. Only some where I wanted it.

 

[BPoole]

Some games could get away with it. It is insane to me that a game like GTAV which offers a huge, highly detailed world with dozens of hours worth of content, whereas a game like The Order is super short and lacks replayability.

I would gladly pay $80 for games like GTAV that offer me so much quality content

 

[Phrozenflame500]

So the argument he's making is that, at current prices and dev budgets, gaint major AAA-releases aren't commercially viable anymore.

This means:

• Devs need to lower budgets (unlikely, customers are demanding more and more expensive games)
• Devs need to resort to micropayments to raise revenue (what they're doing now)
• Devs need to raise prices

The last, of course, is what he's suggesting.

The thing is, I'd argue the expanding market and increased audience is in part *because* of the cheapening of video games. Making them more expensive will lower the audience for each release. I don't have the business intuition to know if this will lead to a net-return, but I don't think it's fair to assume the returns if they even exist will cover the expanding dev budgets.

And as much as people complain about DLC and micro-transactions, I actually prefer their existence to a higher base price, although that's just my opinion. Lower marketing and graphical budgets are preferable to both to me, but that just doesn't seem to be the way the AAA-market is going.

Of course this is assuming that you agree with his initial premise that AAA-games aren't commercially viable. I'm a bit mixed on it. I think they still might be viable, but only in the very risk-adverse market with poor labor conditions we see now.

 

[oni-link]

Yeah, games were ridiculously overpriced then. They're just overpriced now.

New games maybe, but they fall in price so fast if you don't mind waiting 6 months to a year after a game is out, you can game on a budget and probably end up with a better experience than those who are buying day 1, because you'll be playing the games when they're all patched up (and maybe even with the DLC on the disc in GOTY editions)

Spoiler

Unless we're talking about Nintendo games, they never drop in price

But they come out polished anyway

 

[Melter]

Not a chance. As if they're going to stop with the DLC bs anyway. I feel like even $60 is too much for a game. Nintendo makes great games that they often sell for $40 or less (especially on 3DS but also on wii u), proving you don't need a crazy budget to make a good video game anyway.