Support NeoGAF

[Stoney Mason]

It's too much for 360 games with multiplayer considering you have to pay Microsoft for the privelage of using the feature you already paid for when you bought that $60 game.

Certainly entitled to that opinion although millions of Halo, COD 4, or Left 4 Dead players, don't agree with you. Neither do actual sales figures.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Times do change, but your examples are not relevant to the subject at hand. Not only are games cheaper than ever when adjusted for inflation, but production values on them have never been higher.

I can say the same exact thing with home video. Expensive when they came out but gradually worked their way down.

As far as I'm concerned, $60 is a bargain compared to the days when I paid $99 for Phantasy Star IV (which would be closer to $120 in today's money).

Just because you got ripped off so many years ago doesn't make what we pay now a good price.

Not all games are $60 games, but it's a fair price to charge for a game at release considering the costs involved.

By this logic in theaters they should charge more for seeing your average summer blockbuster than your typical indie film, yet they are both $8 to see in my local Tinseltown. There is a reason for steady pricing.

 

[PopcornMegaphone]

I've learned people the on the internet don't want to pay for anything. Particularly when it involves trivial goods like video games. They often rationalize pirating this way.

 

[ACESandEIGHTS]

I've learned people the on the internet don't want to pay for anything. Particularly when it involves trivial goods like video games. They often rationalize pirating this way.

Seriously, I couldn't agree less... I know the rationalizing pirates are out there in droves, but out of sheer laziness, lack of will, lack of experience, fear of virus or reprisal, or prioritizing my income, I've never pirated a game.
So why should the dilligent (clueless?) consumer take the hit for following the rules?

 

[Hawkian]

While team sizes, wages, and marketing and actual game production costs have greatly increased.

That's a bit misleading. Take-Two Interactive has over 2,000 employees. Vicarious Visions has under 300. That doesn't stop GTAIV and MUA2 from being released at the same price point.

If retail costs reflected development costs at all, you'd see a huge range of prices at initial reach from ALL developers- not just a fixed price point for the big ones and a bunch of low prices from the independents.

So why should the dilligent (clueless?) consumer take the hit for following the rules?

I agree with this, but taken to all its logical extrapolations. Consumers shouldn't be expected to pay more OR deal with intrusive DRM solutions because of a segment of the market that operates illegally.

 

[PopcornMegaphone]

Seriously, I couldn't agree less... I know the rationalizing pirates are out there in droves, but out of sheer laziness, lack of will, lack of experience, fear of virus or reprisal, or prioritizing my income, I've never pirated a game.
So why should the dilligent (clueless?) consumer take the hit for following the rules?

I never called you a pirate.

What's the hit? How is a consumer clueless? If you think a game is too expensive, wait until it goes on sale or don't buy it. It's pretty easy. Video games are a luxury good. That's the way the world works.

 

[ACESandEIGHTS]

Video games are a luxury good. That's the way the world works.

I guess this is the long and short of it.

Maybe gamers sometimes are just saying: help us (consumers) help you (publishers) keep the industry thriving.

 

[Evlar]

I never called you a pirate.

What's the hit? How is a consumer clueless? If you think a game is too expensive, wait until it goes on sale or don't buy it. It's pretty easy. Video games are a luxury good. That's the way the world works.

I think it's evident that a discussion on whether the standard price of a good is too high implies that some participants are already refusing to pay the standard price, or considering refusing to pay it.

 

[Slavik81]

I never called you a pirate.

What's the hit? How is a consumer clueless? If you think a game is too expensive, wait until it goes on sale or don't buy it. It's pretty easy. Video games are a luxury good. That's the way the world works.

Uh, no. Video games are a normal good. They have potentially mass-market sales numbers and their consumers buy them for their quality, rather than for their exclusiveness.

 

[PopcornMegaphone]

I guess this is the long and short of it.

Maybe gamers sometimes are just saying: help us (consumers) help you (publishers) keep the industry thriving.

I hear you. No one wants to pay a lot for a goods or services. We can debate if the industry would be in better shape if COD:MW2 retailed for $30, however Activision feels otherwise. Its their product and they can charge whatever they want (right now it's $60). As a consumer I have to decide if their product is worth it.

 

[Hawkian]

Video games are a luxury good. That's the way the world works.

Again, this argument justifies the fact that videogames cost more than $0.

It doesn't do much to assuage the fact that PC gamers alone pretty much dodged a bullet. It makes "games are cheaper than ever before when considering inflation" sound pretty ridiculous to someone that paid $10 less for Red Faction: Guerrilla two weeks ago than for Diablo II in the year 2000.

This generation, console gamers are helping to subsidize their makers' losses on console sales (possibly with the exception of the Wii). This isn't a bad thing necessarily, though I still think $60 is kind of a rip-off, especially considering that Xbox Live also requires you to pay yearly for online multiplayer. I think $50 was a good price point. I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense that game prices were raised $10 since the last generation... hell, it makes me feel lucky more than anything, as I shifted to PC gaming after the 360 came out basically by coincidence. But I still think it sort of sucks.

Anyway I guess to answer the OP, I do, and I'm glad I don't have to pay it.

EDIT:

Uh, no. Video games are a normal good.

I think you are misunderstanding the concept of "luxury." Videogames are not food, shelter, clothing, medication, etc. They are for purposes of entertainment only.

 

[KittyKittyBangBang]

I dont feel that $60 is too much for a game, I would argue that a $60 for most games is a much better value than a $30 Blu-ray movie, or a $15 CD (who the hell buys CD's anymore?)

That said, I rarely buy $60 games, only once or twice a year. Im not a slave to the release calandar and have no problem waiting for price drops. Unless you are a COD made by IW, then you are a day one purchase regardless of the situation.

 

[bluehat9]

Just don't buy at launch and wait for a sale. Seems like you can find most games 10-20 bucks cheaper if you just wait a few weeks (or cheaper if you find someone who's finished with the game and trying to get rid of it).

So I don't know if $60 is too much, but I don't pay it.

 

[Keylime]

How many people think that too many people enjoy playing games to stage a worthwhile protest that could actually make a difference?

"Let's all not buy MGS5 or Halo4 to stage a protest of game prices!" I would agree with the idea, but my own selfish desire to play the game would cause me to buy it anyway, and I'm sure most others would fall into the same camp.

Unless games magically were raised to $300 a game, I don't see anyone throwing a big enough hissy fit to be worth paying attention to.

 

[PopcornMegaphone]

Uh, no. Video games are a normal good. They have potentially mass-market sales numbers and their consumers buy them for their quality, rather than for their exclusiveness.

We can get in to the semantics of what a "luxury good" is. However, my point is it's not a necessary good like food or water. You don't need video games.

I think it's evident that a discussion on whether the standard price of a good is too high implies that some participants are already refusing to pay the standard price, or considering refusing to pay it.

I refuse to pay $60 for most games I want, so I wait. For instance I waited to buy Halo Wars because I didn't want to pay more than $40. On the other hand I got MLB The Show day one for $60 because I couldn't wait. I always wait for my price point. I have no problem with Halo Wars originally being $60.

 

[Raistlin]

Yes i know games have to be priced at $60 but that is wayy too much for software entertainment, especialy games that are so short nowadays (many less than 10 hours). Even $50 was pushing it. I always feel guilty knowing i spent that much for a short game. Why do games have to be priced much much more than Bluray/HDDVD movies? IMO newly released games should be priced around $30-40, it just seems more reasonably priced.

We can't have it both ways.

If we want high production values, etc. ... we have to be willing to pay for them.

 

[Keylime]

Something people need to take into consideration is how much money the developers and publishers are expecting to make on these products.

If games were so dramatically overpriced from a business perspective, we wouldn't have so many studios shutting down or merging to stay afloat.

Gaming to me (without an indepth analysis) appears to be a pretty high risk/reward arena, which is why we're likely seeing a ton of sequels to already proven IP instead of new IP.

 

[KittyKittyBangBang]

We can't have it both ways.

If we want high production values, etc. ... we have to be willing to pay for them.

Which is why full-on digital distribution cant get here soon enough IMO, cut out the middleman and give us high-quality games at lower cost

 

[Keylime]

Which is why full-on digital distribution cant get here soon enough IMO, cut out the middleman and give us high-quality games at lower cost

I highly doubt that the cost savings will be passed on to the consumer in these scenarios. XBox's OnDemand gaming pricing structure is entirely based on the current retail price of the physical media copies, for instance.

 

[MotherFan]

I have only bought one game so far this gen for $60, and I can only see two more, ME2 and FFXIII that I will buy at that price as well. The rest of the games I have bought were on ebay for significantly less and either A) sold back for a similar price after I was done or B) kept

Usually I only keep the ones I really like or I intend to play alot of multiplayer with. CoD4 falls into this category.

One the other hand, I buy more DS games at full price since they tend to be cheaper. I think I have bought at least 8 full price there, and wii is in between.

 

[aeolist]

It's way too much and closes off the market to a lot of people who would otherwise be buying games.

Fortunately I have no problem waiting for bombs and price drops.

 

[plagiarize]

clearly not everyone can afford to spend $60 on every game they want. that doesn't make those people cheapskates or games overpriced though.

pricing such things is pretty difficult. everyone has their own price point they're prepared to bite at, and it's pretty plain to see that someone who would bite at $50 day one is probably still going to bite at $50 in a month or two.

the maths is whether or not you lose more money from people that won't be interested by the time the game drops to $50, or if you launch at $50 from all the people that would have paid $60 for the game day one.

there's nothing wrong with you if you don't value a video game enough to spend $60 on one. i mean, i do, but that doesn't mean i value gaming more. it could mean i value $60 less. there have certainly been times in my life where i couldn't justify $60 a game.

all of us consumers would like games to be cheaper. naturally... but so long as a price point is working then i don't think games are too expensive.

say we dropped the price to $30, we'd need to more than double sales of the title at $60 since shipping and manufacturing costs per game wouldn't go down and since a game starting at $60 would eventually see some sales at $30.

if you can't wait, and you begrudgingly pay the full price tag so as to not have to, then the game is priced fairly for you.

 

[Stoney Mason]

That's a bit misleading. Take-Two Interactive has over 2,000 employees. Vicarious Visions has under 300. That doesn't stop GTAIV and MUA2 from being released at the same price point.

If retail costs reflected development costs at all, you'd see a huge range of prices at initial reach from ALL developers- not just a fixed price point for the big ones and a bunch of low prices from the independents.

I was more making the point with that post that there is a flip side to post I was quoting. I agree that more games do need more of a variable price point. I think things like XBLA and PSN prove that and will continue to prove that. I don't inherently however find that the top of the price scale is too much as a general concept for the top of the line games, or even more despite how unpopular an opinion that is on a gaming forum. I'm all for a more variable pricing structure however.

 

[Hawkian]

If we want high production values, etc. ... we have to be willing to pay for them.

I just have to stress again that this is not how it works. Different games have varying production costs, different development teams with different numbers of employees, different salaries for those employees, different amounts allocated for royalties/publishing fees...

It may cost marginally higher to produce games for consoles than the PC currently, but not enough to explain the gap in prices. The extra money instead goes toward subsidizing the price of the consoles themselves which are sold at a loss (though again, I don't know that this is the case for the Wii, Nintendo may have abandoned this model at the expense of making the Wii far less powerful than its competitors).

This is a "loss leader" strategy, and essentially an extreme implementation of a "razor and blades" business model. It has been going on in the gaming industry for decades and I don't think it's a bad thing. I think the $10 price jump in the last 5 years is a touch suckful, however.

EDIT: StoneyMason, sorry if I misinterpreted you at all. Those are good point and I don't necessarily disagree with any of them.

 

[KittyKittyBangBang]

I highly doubt that the cost savings will be passed on to the consumer in these scenarios. XBox's OnDemand gaming pricing structure is entirely based on the current retail price of the physical media copies, for instance.

I agree, those Games on Demand prices are a fucking disgrace, but I feel its because MS doesnt want the potential retailer backlash if the digital version of the game is cheaper than the retail, I would hope it would be different if retailers were out of the picture altogether

 

[mclem]

According to my monday morning half asleep math..this would mean you have played the game almost 6 hours a day, 7 days a week for 4 years

Yeah, depressing. It's some small consolation, though, that it comes in cycles; huge splurges around the release of expansion packs, smaller splurges for patches, bigger gaps during the periods between those, and not playing at all during Christmas (big family time!).

(Also, it's actually about 4.75 years by now, from European release through to today)

 

[Brazil]

The problem with those dollar value comparisons is that you can't buy a game NOW with your money from THEN. It might be the same as $45 was then, but it's still $60 now.

It's not hard to figure that if the prices went up based on the dollar value, so did the salaries.

 

[JudgeN]

I agree, those Games on Demand prices are a fucking disgrace, but I feel its because MS doesnt want the potential retailer backlash if the digital version of the game is cheaper than the retail, I would hope it would be different if retailers were out of the picture altogether

Of course they don't want retail backlash, if you piss off retailers and they choose not to stock your game, your fucked. No matter what people on GAF say retailers hold all the powers, physical media will always be #1 and DD is never EVER going to take over. Game company know that retailers don't make alot of money off game sales, and that they could easily do without them but the developers/publisher can not do without retailers.

For a guy who expects evidence from others, you need to show evidence that the increase in salary is actually ENOUGH to keep up with inflation.

To chime in with dojokun

Just speaking for my family but my Mom raises for the past 15+ years have only be 1.5%, my dad's have been 2%. Being I just started my career my raises for the past 2 years have been 3% (this year I won't get one because of the economy). So I would say no that salary increases are not even enough to keep up with inflation. Its sad that I actually make less money every year :lol

 

[dojokun]

But you are also ignoring the fact that inflation doesn't only mean that prices went up, but that salaries and such have also gone up, so purchasing power remains fairly constant.

For a guy who expects evidence from others, you need to show evidence that the increase in salary is actually ENOUGH to keep up with inflation.

 

[oracrest]

Yes i know games have to be priced at $60 but that is wayy too much for software entertainment, especialy games that are so short nowadays (many less than 10 hours). Even $50 was pushing it. I always feel guilty knowing i spent that much for a short game. Why do games have to be priced much much more than Bluray/HDDVD movies? IMO newly released games should be priced around $30-40, it just seems more reasonably priced.

Movies earn revenue at the box office, and in a home format. Games only earn from the later. Movies also tend to come out over and over through the years, director's cuts, and new formats. Games pretty much come out once, in a home format, and earn everything from that, mostly.

but I agree, $60 is a lot, but I imagine the price will go down the bigger games get, and publishers apply other ways for it to make money outside of the old formula.

 

[PopcornMegaphone]

For a guy who expects evidence from others, you need to show evidence that the increase in salary is actually ENOUGH to keep up with inflation.

It depends on your location, past salary and current salary. In real dollars some people are making less money, and some are making more. That's the way the world works.

 

[dojokun]

It depends on your location, past salary and current salary. In real dollars some people are making less money, and some are making more. That's the way the world works.

Which is why you can't just assume everyone's purchasing power is the same, like elrechazao did.

 

[Edeuinu]

OP; I do

 

[Aaron Strife]

We can't have it both ways.

If we want high production values, etc. ... we have to be willing to pay for them.

Yeah but if every game could look like Kingdom Hearts 2 (from a technical perspective) I would honestly be fine with that. Devs are going above and beyond that, which is nice, but nothing I'd want to pay extra for.

 

[PopcornMegaphone]

Which is why you can't just assume everyone's purchasing power is the same, like elrechazao did.

Yeah, but that has little to do with the discussion of game pricing. Business costs have increased due to inflation and they are justifiably passing those costs to the consumer. Mass market pricing can't work in a vacuum for an individual consumer's earning history, nor should it.

 

[Mareg]

Working Designs was the only company releasing games worth 60$.

 

[radioheadrule83]

Game pricing has always been too high. Its not at a mass market price... this recession really hit it home for me that this is a luxory hobby that claims a LOT of fucking money to participate in properly. I just put my PS3 up for sale in the buy/sell/trade thread. I am a lovefilm member now, I rent games, and I haven't bought a full priced game for ages... I've rented Arkham Asylum, I haven't bought it -- and the latest bought game I'm enjoying is Metroid Prime Trilogy, and I think I was able to part with my money there as I viewed it as some sort of bargain.

I would buy more games in the £20-30 region, and a lot more if they were ~£15. If there's one thing I'd like to see digital distribution and on-demand services like OnLive achieve -- its an end to fucking ridiculous prices.

And yet - I still think its a very real possibility that when discs are dead and gone, we'll be paying the same prices (inflation adjusted) or higher - "justified" by higher production values / costs. Publishers don't want to take the risk of trying to sell more at a lower price -- they know that videogame nerds will cough up high amounts of their hard earned pay for a fix. Value and value perception is determined by the consumer and buyer power... if we keep buying at these prices, they'll keep selling them.

 

[freakzilla3000]

I have noticed, particularly with Wii titles, if you wait 1 month, they typically go way down in price.

Little Kings story is a great example. Its 30 bucks now and its only been out for a little while.

 

[Dark Octave]

$22 to see TDK at the movies (1 1/2 hours).

$30 to own TDK on bluray (around 4 hours with extras).

$60 to own and play Batman: AA (around 8 hour story mode not including challenges).

Sounds about right to me.

 

[Hylian7]

Sometimes I feel like $60 is too much, but other times not so much. This is part of the reason I prefer to buy PC games (especially Steam) because they are generally cheaper and price drop very quickly. I try to avoid paying $60 for a game unless it's one of those "gotta have it on launch day/night" type titles. I did that picking up RE5 at midnight just because it was Resident Evil. For any game that's not brand new though, I usually look around on the internet before I rush out to pay $60 for a game at a retail store. You would be surprised what you can find on the internet at sites like Newegg or Amazon. For stuff that's been out for a period of time, I usually look to Steam for my PC games, and stores like Best Buy when it has those occasional Sunday sales on games Remember the first time they made Ninja Gaiden II $10?! You bet I was in on that! In fact, all the used game stores actually gave more than that in store credit (and I think about $10 in cash as well) back then, so I had nothing to lose if for some reason I didn't like and didn't want to keep the game.

 

[rohlfinator]

It may cost marginally higher to produce games for consoles than the PC currently, but not enough to explain the gap in prices. The extra money instead goes toward subsidizing the price of the consoles themselves which are sold at a loss (though again, I don't know that this is the case for the Wii, Nintendo may have abandoned this model at the expense of making the Wii far less powerful than its competitors).

Do you have a reference for this?

Licensing fees aren't a new thing, and from what I've read they are about the same this generation as they were previously. And Nintendo certainly hasn't abandoned the model. I don't remember any of the actual numbers offhand -- it would be interesting to see an update on that.

So while console licensing fees might explain the difference between console and PC pricing, they don't explain the differences between 360/PS3 and Wii or between 360/PS3 and PS2/Xbox/GC.

I have my doubts that licensing really affects the cost to consumers at all, though -- if publishers thought they could sell Wii and PC games for $60, they would (and in a few cases they have).

 

[Hawkian]

So while console licensing fees might explain the difference between console and PC pricing, they don't explain the differences between 360/PS3 and Wii or between 360/PS3 and PS2/Xbox/GC.

That's my point. I don't think I need to find a reference because you essentially agree with me. The licensing fees (if they have increased at all) can't have been so significant as to signify the jump in "blade" pricing between generations.

But regardless here is a 2005 article on M$ losing $126 per unit in selling the 360 http://www.gamespot.com/news/6140383.html

if publishers thought they could sell Wii and PC games for $60, they would (and in a few cases they have).

But they generally do not think that. What cases are you referring to?

 

[StranGER]

back in the day when games where pricey there were less must have titles, hell there were less titles over all if i'm not mistaken. i'm sure someone here could verify coleco visions must have game count compared to say the 360's

??

 

[Evlar]

$22 to see TDK at the movies (1 1/2 hours).

$30 to own TDK on bluray (around 4 hours with extras).

$60 to own and play Batman: AA (around 8 hour story mode not including challenges).

Sounds about right to me.

Hmm? $22 for two tickets I presume, not one. And TDK is 2-1/2 hours long. So it ought to be $11 for 2.5 hours of entertainment in the theater.

Also, you're likely to watch the Blu-Ray with more than one person. Batman: AA is single player. This also doesn't address the very common discounts on Blu-Ray on release day... a phenomenon that is very rare among video games. I bought TDK on Blu-Ray for $22, brand new, the day it was released.

EDIT: Finally, I think it's evident that as a practical matter people do not price their entertainment by the hour. A live concert will be considerably more expensive than an album, even if only the exact same songs are played.

 

[rohlfinator]

That's my point. I don't think I need to find a reference because you essentially agree with me. The licensing fees (if they have increased at all) can't have been so significant as to signify the jump in "blade" pricing between generations.

My point is that licensing fees have been around forever, even before the razor-blades model took off, and Nintendo is still using it with the Wii (and DS). I agree with you for the most part, though.

But they generally do not think that. What cases are you referring to?

Modern Warfare 2 for the PC is one example, and I believe some of the recent Guitar Hero and Rock Band games for Wii have debuted at $60.

 

[krae_man]

I remember when N64 games were $100 and Players choice games were $50.

I paid $115 for WWF Warzone after tax.

Still worth every penny. Best wrestling game ever

 

[ElectricThunder]

It really depends on the circumstances for the developers and the buyers. There's some games out there with a very niche, but loyal, audience that would, and should, probably cost far in excess of $60 in order to bring it into existence. Other game in general just work that their general price points and people wait or jump in as they please.

Nowadays, I tend to only grab games from up and coming as well as niche outfits who I reckon need the full on sales. Also, upon some Amazon searchinng, it became clear that their few prior games, when applicable, had pretty well held their value over the months. Everybody likes a deal afterall, so nowadays I'm happy if I can just get the little -$3 pre-order discount at Amazon (what're the odds that all 4 of the remining ones in the list have yet to gain this :lol )

I do agree that more games would be sold, in general, with a lower average price. 20-30 IS quite a nice price afterall. Time'll tell as to what people elect to spend on and what companies are left standing in terms of how they predict a shift ahead of time...or not.

 

[PopcornMegaphone]

I do agree that more games would be sold, in general, with a lower average price. 20-30 IS quite a nice price afterall. .

The billion dollar question is - would publishers double their sales at half the price ($30)? My guess is they wouldn't, but I can't really be sure.

 

[rohlfinator]

The billion dollar question is - would publishers double their sales at half the price ($30)? My guess is they wouldn't, but I can't really be sure.

And they'd have to more than double their sales to match their current profits, since they'd be paying double the distribution costs and such.

I think the current system is doing its job. For a lot of games there are clearly enough people willing to pay $60 to make that price worthwhile to publishers, and those who want to pay less can wait until the price drops. More price flexibility would be nice, though. I don't think slashing prices in half across the board would do much good, but there are a few games that would benefit from a $30-50 launch price.

 

[PopcornMegaphone]

And they'd have to more than double their sales to match their current profits, since they'd be paying double the distribution costs and such.

Nitpick - I'm sure the distribution costs are on a unit basis, so that's not true. If fact, with economy of scale I bet they could sell less than double for the same profits.

But yeah, I agree with your overall points.