-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Blogger: Games Should Be More Expensive
- Thread starter mdubs
- Start date
Indeed. It would just end up being an even bigger problem. Where does it end?
metareferential
Member
The problem lies within games' marketing budgets: why a does a game that costs 20 millions need a marketing budget of another 20M? In 2015 there are many ways to reach your audience. And that does not include celebrities or superbowl commercials.
ultrazilla
Gold Member
It doesn't.
The game industry has adopted the Hollywood style way of accounting for profits/spending. Remember when New Line Cinema said that the Lord of the Rings Trilogy didn't make them any money when Peter Jackson sued them? LMFAO
SonyToo!™
Member
Excusing the fact that UK prices have gone up by ÂŁ5-ÂŁ10, even if game prices rose to $80 publishers would still be making shit games with loads of DLC & MTs
Demoskinos
Member
Honestly Im surprised it hasn't gone up to at least $70.
Season Passes are actually pretty rare. Of my 91 PS4 games only 7 of them have Season Passes:
Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag, Destiny, Dying Light, Far Cry 4, Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor, The Evil Within, Watch_Dogs. The Ubisoft games, Mordor, and Dying Light give you some lite-content packs and a bunch of chopped up little things and aren't very good, sure, but not every Pass is bad. Destiny's Expansion Pass and The Evil Within's Season Pass give you pretty big chunks of Expansion Pack-like content. Both of those are very good if you're into those games and they are the type of extra content that people should be making.
AC Unity also had a season pass and then they decided to cancel it and give out the DLC for free.
CalamityPixel
Member
I rarely buy games on launch now, due to them being so expensive.
I only get a game if it's under ÂŁ39, I couldn't bring myself to buy a game that cost in ÂŁ40-ÂŁ60 region unless its a one off special edition.
I only get a game if it's under ÂŁ39, I couldn't bring myself to buy a game that cost in ÂŁ40-ÂŁ60 region unless its a one off special edition.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Thank you. I mean if you were to take that picture on the right, add the meat and leave off the lettuce and cheese, then OK, sure. I can somewhat argue that, plus the picture on the right hilariously exaggerates the amount of content that comes in pre-order DLC.
Mass Effect 3 is the only examples, where you can argue that legit pieces of the game were sold as DLC. Such is not the case for games like Borderlands 2, Dishonored, and Fallout games.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Destinys pass is in many ways what is wrong with the industry. All of that content felt like it belonged in the main game. Evil Within felt like what it was supposed to be: additional content.
I bought games in the SNES era for more than $100 back then. Street Fighter 2 was $115 if I recall correctly.
I always find it funny that Forbes:atricles threads are usually renamed to Bloggerpinion threads.
I wouldn't have a problem with this, but it's done inconsistently. For example DocSeuss still gets threads about his articles left as "Kotaku says:" but Forbes get changed. I'd like one of the mods to explain why this is done (via PM or however they prefer), but no one has come forward yet which is disappointing.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Nobody asked for 100 million dollar budgets with 100 million dollar advertising campaigns. The big publishers wanted that.
Shalashaska161
Member
I agree that it should be done. A $70 price tag on the biggest of big games probably would go a long way to helping keep costs manageable. I doubt it would do much to curb microtransactions and shitty DLC, but it wouldn't surprise me if that extra cash went into making better products or if we saw publishers experimenting a bit more with other smaller games.
Still, that $70 price tag is a hard mental barrier to break for a lot of people, and I don't exclude myself from this. Games are now selling for that much or more here in Canada, and it's turned me off a couple purchases already. I remember buying Demon's Souls for $70 back when it came out and it still annoys me to this day, and that game ended up being one of my favorites of last gen. It just feels like too much money, and I don't know if thats a feeling that the industry will ever be able to shake out of people.
Still, that $70 price tag is a hard mental barrier to break for a lot of people, and I don't exclude myself from this. Games are now selling for that much or more here in Canada, and it's turned me off a couple purchases already. I remember buying Demon's Souls for $70 back when it came out and it still annoys me to this day, and that game ended up being one of my favorites of last gen. It just feels like too much money, and I don't know if thats a feeling that the industry will ever be able to shake out of people.
Make more budget games is a better answer imo. When I buy a game is like to know I get my money's worth. I doubt that if a company can get away with charging you more and giving you less they would. So I don't see a higher price actually fixing the problem, just making it worse for customers.
Comparison to a physical product like Oreos is complete nonsense. Oreos have a base per-unit manufacturing cost based on the price of raw materials and labor. Games cost almost nothing per-unit, especially with digital distribution. Most of the costs are either averaged over all games sold, or percentages of sales rather than fixed costs.
Also, we are bad customers. We are not buying enough of it and they claim it MUST be done that way.
Take a chill-pill AAA devs and learn to focus.
Assasin's Creed Unity was ridiculous. We would casually run through houses and stuff, hardly catching a glipse of the surroundings. But whenever we stopped to look around it was the same amazing realisation: holy hell this is a lot of work and money spent on intricate interior in every single place we came through. Even with copy paste furniture it at least looked like a ton of money went into places where the player may not even go a single time.
Like I said, maybe it's an illusion created by extremely good modern tools but the feeling that that is part of the reason of 100 million dev costs stayed with us.
Petrae
Member
I'd have less of a problem with an across-the-board price increase if DLC went away-- but, as many others have already stated... that's not gonna happen. Publishers will continue to push DLC as a revenue stream because they've conditioned consumers to expect and buy it already. It's been a gradual conditioning process, but it's ingrained now. You expect DLC to be announced a couple of months before release and you expect various DLC items for preorder (based on where you buy it).
Publishers could explain a $10-$20 increase per game by citing rising operating costs and overhead, and many consumers will just accept it. After all, if publishers don't give us games to buy, what will gaming fans spend their money on? But after that, it would be business as usual, with the same DLC benchmarks that we've become accustomed to for almost a decade.
I no longer buy at launch anyway, so unless this trend of price drops after 3-6 weeks of release ends... a price increase would likely only mean for me that I would simply wait longer for prices to fall more into my affordability range. I can be patient.
Publishers could explain a $10-$20 increase per game by citing rising operating costs and overhead, and many consumers will just accept it. After all, if publishers don't give us games to buy, what will gaming fans spend their money on? But after that, it would be business as usual, with the same DLC benchmarks that we've become accustomed to for almost a decade.
I no longer buy at launch anyway, so unless this trend of price drops after 3-6 weeks of release ends... a price increase would likely only mean for me that I would simply wait longer for prices to fall more into my affordability range. I can be patient.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I never buy DLC and never at full price (usually in the 20 to 30 dollar range). I feel games have plenty of content to justify their price.
I'm satisfied with the content and have no desire to have that added content which would raise the price for stuff I don't. I like the DLC model because it keeps the price down for me, someone who doesn't want that stuff.
I'm satisfied with the content and have no desire to have that added content which would raise the price for stuff I don't. I like the DLC model because it keeps the price down for me, someone who doesn't want that stuff.
Dr. Black Jack
Member
Yuuuuuup. All of these season passes, limited editions, etc. are to entice people to pay what the game should actually be sold for. Games are the cheapest they've ever been yet cost the most to produce. It's pretty insane that over the past 20 years we've had ONE inflation adjustment for MSRP.
But they also sell more then ever, which offsets a lot of increased costs. This is especially true because video game development doesn't have many variable costs, and the variable costs that are there have been shrinking thanks to downloadable games.
The Albatross
Member
The concept of some price "keeping up with inflation" when there is an arbitrary, fixed price ($50 or $60), is ridiculous. That, by definition, is not keeping up with anything.
What there should be is some sort of tiered pricing for games..
And Voila that's exactly what we have today. Want to spend $120 on GTAV and get extra shit and swag? Do it. Want to spend $60 and get just the game? Do it. Want to spend $40 and just get the game? Wait 2 months and do it.
What there should be is some sort of tiered pricing for games..
And Voila that's exactly what we have today. Want to spend $120 on GTAV and get extra shit and swag? Do it. Want to spend $60 and get just the game? Do it. Want to spend $40 and just get the game? Wait 2 months and do it.
Breakfast at Noon
Member
Games need to cost more because AAA are spending a fortune making there games..
Stop spending a fortune making your games.
that is like saying "if more people by digital games, games overall will be cheaper because it will lessen the second hand market"
*looks at Battlefield standard edition for 54.99 digital and 49.99 physical..
Stop spending a fortune making your games.
that is like saying "if more people by digital games, games overall will be cheaper because it will lessen the second hand market"
*looks at Battlefield standard edition for 54.99 digital and 49.99 physical..
JimmyRustler
Member
I don't think it would help considering how many games are available these days and how easy it is to get them. You could only do this if you say introduce VR games and then set the price point to 100$. People would still buy it because there is no other way around. But for classic gaming as it is today? Not going to work. People would just play something else.
No, they're to get people to buy additional content. Season Passes are also actually Petty Rare.
I can't believe how many posters here are convinced that nearly every game has DLC and that there's tons of season passes. Neither are even remotely true. Less than 1/10th of my 91 PS4 games have Season Passes. Less than 1/3rd have DLC that you can buy on PSN. Even if you took out all the remasters that number wouldn't increase a whole lot either.
gigantor21
Member
All raising prices would do is convince more people to wait out all but the biggest titles--which are exactly the ones that aren't being hurt by the current pricing model in the first place. I don't see why people keep floating it as some panacea that would magically fix the industry's budgeting problems.
The cost of game development (especially AAA) will inherently go up since you have to account for inflation (increased wages, overhead costs, incidental costs, taxes etc.) If you made game X today for $10 million you will have to pay more to make the same game next year.
shadowstar
Member
I think it would be hard for people to swallow a higher cost as the current price is already more than what most people spend on casual entertainment. It's more than buying a movie, book, music, comics, and can be more than some concerts. If you qualify the value of entertainment solely in hours, games probably come out on top. If people prioritize a different aspect of entertainment, they may find more value in alternative cheaper experiences. The hardcore would probably still be in, but a higher entry cost could affect sales. Casual gamers already get upset when a phone game costs more than 99 cents.
MatrixMan.EXE
Member
Well, what I will say is, games are becoming more expensive to produce, by several magnitudes, but if you factor inflation, they're actually a lot cheaper than they used to be, for games that cost nearly nowhere near as much to develop.
While I think the business practices such as gouging for DLC, and the whole 'pre-order for ____ DLC pack' culture that is rampant in the AAA industry, I do not feel as though the average ÂŁ40-45 I can get most full retail games for these days isn't extortionate at all.
While I think the business practices such as gouging for DLC, and the whole 'pre-order for ____ DLC pack' culture that is rampant in the AAA industry, I do not feel as though the average ÂŁ40-45 I can get most full retail games for these days isn't extortionate at all.
NipplesAndToes23
Member
This is hard for me to believe when just last year it was Ken Levine or somebody that said that the game industry doesn't make budgets public knowledge like the film industry is because consumers would question why games aren't cheaper.
JinjoUnchained
Member
I've made the same point numerous times here on GAF and have received equal amounts flame/agreement. The compromise we always came to is that there should be variable pricing for games of different sizes. The real issue is the "everything has to be $60 mentality". Yeah, the bleeding edge AAA games with long campaigns and multiplayer servers to support should charge more than $60 at retail if that higher price equals marginal cost. But it goes the other way too: something like The Order with no multiplayer and a 7 hour campaign should cost LESS THAN $60 because it's not delivering $60 worth of value. And incomplete and broken games like AC Unity and Halo MCC should definitely cost less than $60.
That's the real issue: the attitude some publishers have that "it's gotta be $60 so the consumer will think it's AAA". Bullshit. Charge an appropriate price given the amount of value in the game; and we're talking actual value, not padding to make a 15 hour game look like it's 50 hours of actual content.. Nintendo has done a good job at variable pricing in the last year. Both Tropical Freeze and Captain Toad retailed for $50, a good price point as they were awesome, but not of the same scale as Mario Kart 8 or 3D World.
That's the real issue: the attitude some publishers have that "it's gotta be $60 so the consumer will think it's AAA". Bullshit. Charge an appropriate price given the amount of value in the game; and we're talking actual value, not padding to make a 15 hour game look like it's 50 hours of actual content.. Nintendo has done a good job at variable pricing in the last year. Both Tropical Freeze and Captain Toad retailed for $50, a good price point as they were awesome, but not of the same scale as Mario Kart 8 or 3D World.
Interficium
Banned
Oh, I fucking I love this.
Gaf expectations are cutting edge graphics that max out each system the game is on (using each platform's unique characteristics to their fullest potential) while providing AT BARE MINIMUM 40-60 hours of unique, innovative gameplay content.
And god help you if you slip below 1080p/60fps, or do any microtransactions, or any DLC (unless it's mythical GAF GOOD DLC which is basically 1/2th the games content for 1/4th of the price)
Don't spend too much money making this game, either, because while GAF expectations are an evolving, moving target, continually demanding new, revolutionary experiences, the same cannot be said for your MSRP, devs!
chrominance
Member
We live this reality right now in Canada. A year ago games still cost $59.99. Now that price is $74.99 or even $79.99, with no return in sight. I have no numbers, so I can't tell you if fewer people are buying games now because of that price (and of course insert caveats about Canadian economy slowing down, etc.). I can tell you that it's influencing my own decisions to buy games, especially in light of my backlog. It's so much easier now to just say, no thanks, I'll wait until it drops in price. And even when those price drops do happen, I'm more reluctant to buy because $20 off MSRP is still only $5 cheaper than what that MSRP would've been last year.
I think the argument that high production values should lead to higher sticker prices is valid, technically. To me the answer isn't to raise sticker prices but to lower production values. This is already happening, as far as I'm concerned--years of gorgeous but extremely linear games show where the corners are being cut. So while games look better than ever, the worlds they depict shrink. But you can only shrink those worlds so far; big-budget games that take place in a single room are as commonplace as big-budget movies that take place in a single room.
I think the argument that high production values should lead to higher sticker prices is valid, technically. To me the answer isn't to raise sticker prices but to lower production values. This is already happening, as far as I'm concerned--years of gorgeous but extremely linear games show where the corners are being cut. So while games look better than ever, the worlds they depict shrink. But you can only shrink those worlds so far; big-budget games that take place in a single room are as commonplace as big-budget movies that take place in a single room.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Yeah. The way it's going they'd just charge you $100 then toss in F2P mechanics just for the sake of having them in there. This isn't something we can horse trade on. If they get a chance to make more, they'll simply make more.
Let's be fair here: this is largely because of overpromising devs and tons of marketing talk about graphics from console manufacturers.
Voysa Reezun
Banned
This is a bit off the beaten path that the article is on, but is one possible piece of the solution the re-creation of the AA-level release? Those mid-range games with low dev costs that get strong returns should be partially subsidizing the AAA-level games that companies put out, but that tier of games is fairly dead here in the West.
I could well be wrong on this, but my understanding is that some Japanese companies (Atlus is the first that springs to mind) are doing a good job by keeping dev costs down and releasing games that can sell 800K - 1M lifetime and do just fine in terms of turning a profit.
Re: The article itself, I've long thought that it was odd that we've been frozen at sixty dollar games for essentially four or so generations now. One thing that I don't know is how much switching from the more expensive cartridge-based games to CD-based games has kept costs from rising when it comes to the base product.
I could well be wrong on this, but my understanding is that some Japanese companies (Atlus is the first that springs to mind) are doing a good job by keeping dev costs down and releasing games that can sell 800K - 1M lifetime and do just fine in terms of turning a profit.
Re: The article itself, I've long thought that it was odd that we've been frozen at sixty dollar games for essentially four or so generations now. One thing that I don't know is how much switching from the more expensive cartridge-based games to CD-based games has kept costs from rising when it comes to the base product.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
They can raise the price as much as they want. It'll still be $30 six months down the line. A lot of people aren't buying games at $60 anymore, I don't know why this guy thinks that raising the price is going to fix anything.