Support NeoGAF

[HotHamBoy]

Now, not that I'm complaining about saving some money, but I can't help but see this pricing discrepancy as rather unfair towards the developer. If a game is legitimately compromised in some way due to techincal or input limitations, then sure, maybe it should be the cheaper version. But I've been playing the ever-loving shit out of Crashlands this last week, which is perfect for iPad, and I've gotten more from that $5 than a lot of games that cost $20. Well, color me surprised when I saw that the game was $15 on Steam. "That's about right," was my first thought. But it made me feel bad that people probaby thought $5 was too expensive for a mobile game and passed on it hoping for a sale.

I feel like we need to move past this price-entitlement on mobile and stop holding the platform to a double-standard in pricing. Just because it doesn't have buttons? Certainly people are used to paying $10-40 for games on 3DS and Vita, but you can easily point to games that are "full console experiences" on iPad. A lot of games that are built for a touch-only interface control beautifully, and the latest mobile devices are technically superior to the handheld consoles in every way. The current mentality is why everything is going F2P and microtransactions - people won't shill out $3 for a game. Then the other half of that is a lot of people think "mobile games are nothing but freemium trash." Well it's not true, but if it seems that way there is a good reason.

The mentality seems to be extending to consoles now. $40 is too much for The Witness? I won't pay more than $15 for an indie game? Wait for Plus? We need to start supporting our developers or the future is episodic, microtransaction hell.

EDIT: A clarification - this topic is regarding why should, not why they must. We know why prices are the way they are, but let's examine the mentality that gets us there. I feel that it isn't going away, only becoming worse as it starts to creep beyond mobile and into other platforms. Why should a game cost what it does and what should keep it from costing more than a certain pricepoint? Look at Digimon Cybersleuth - $40 on Vita, $60 on PS4. Same game, $20 tax for 1080p60. Should the Vita version cost more or the PS4 version cost less? Or are the prices right for both?

Also, by "We" I mean the public at large, although there are certainly a lot of gaffers that fit the bill based on some threads I've read. Don't take it personally, I'm not singling anyone out.

 

[tuxfool]

Price is a function of the market and the mobile market won't bear those prices. Given that people on mobile are perfectly content to play trash like Candy Crush, means that something like the Witness has to compete with that. The people who are willing to pay 40$ for that game will favour other platforms first.

 

[GhostTrick]

Because button tax. Or as developper call it themselves: "Market adaptation".
People said 40 dollars is too expensive for the Witness, because it's an indie game. A game too expensive on iOS/Android is a game at 10-15 dollars. Before, premium price on these markets were the 10 dollars prices. Then it became 5 dollars. In a market filled with free to play, the famous 99 cents game became premium.

IMO, developpers doing that are just devaluating their product.

 

[patapuf]

Price is a function of the market and the mobile market won't bear those prices.

Yeah, It's not so much a "is this fair?" as it is a "people just won't pay, and i hope to make up the difference by volume of sales".

 

[DrWong]

Things could change a bit in the future, development budgets are rising it seems...

http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Tre...e-game-sales-signal-sea-change?n_cid=NARAN012

 

[redcrayon]

Now, not that I'm complaining about saving some money, but I can't help but see this pricing discrepancy as rather unfair towards the developer. If a game is legitimately comprimised in some way due to techincal or input limitations, then sure, maybe it should be the cheaper version. But I've been playing the ever-loving shit out of Crashlands this last week, which is perfect for iPad, and I've gotten more from that $5 than a lot of games that cost $20. Well, color me surprised when I saw that the game was $15 on Steam. "That's about right," was my first thought. But it made me feel bad that people probaby thought $5 was too expensive for a mobile game and passed on it hoping for a sale.

I feel like we need to move past this price-entitlement on mobile and stop holding the platform to a double-standard in pricing. Just because it doesn't have buttons? Certainly people are used to paying $10-40 for games on 3DS and Vita, but you can easily point to games that are "full console experiences" on iPad. A lot of games that are built for a touch-only interface control beautifully, and the latest mobile devices are technically superior to the handheld consoles in every way. The current mentality is why everything is going F2P and microtransactions - people won't shill out $3 for a game. Then the other half of that is a lot of people think "mobile games are nothing but freemium trash." Well it's not true, but if it seems that way there is a good reason.

The mentality seems to be extending to consoles now. $40 is too much for The Witness? I won't pay more than $15 for an indie game? Wait for Plus? We need to start supporting our developers or the future is episodic, microtransaction hell.

By 'we' do you mean all customers of mobile gaming? Or people on this forum? Because I suspect that the people you are addressing this to here are are at least a customer base proven to pay for quality computer games in the past, and so probably more likely to pay for quality mobile titles than your average customer.

The issue is that they need to price it cheap to attract that expanded market which is the reason they are putting it on mobile in the first place, and those customers have been shown from the early days of the smartphone era that FTP with microtransactions is what's 'normal'. It's then backed up by most of the games their friends will talk about being FTP too.

Personally there's a reason I'll pay £30 for Monster Hunter on creaking 3DS hardware, specs don't bother me at all. I've been paying £25-£30 for portable games for the last 25 years and I can still pull out a GB and play it's titles if I choose to, they haven't been rendered broken by umpteen almost-mandatory OS updates. The eshop/PSN also offers variable pricing on smaller titles and sales these days (I paid £4 each for Mercenary Saga 2, a fantastic SRPG on 3DS, and for Frozen Synapse on Vita in a sale) too.

For me, another difference is that I only have expensive smart devices for their primary purpose (for me)- my ipad was given to me by the office, and I'd rather reserve my phone's battery for phone calls etc if I get delayed/stuck on the train. As such, I'll pay for the odd game on them (happily paid £2.50 for Hero Emblems, and voted for it in the mobile GOtY thread). But any more than that and I'd rather be playing on a portable, keeping my hobby devices and everyday use ones happily separate in case I want to change to Android next time around. I'm sure the eventual collapse of the portable market will force me onto mobile devices for gaming eventually, but fortunately for me that's at least another generation away yet.

It's true that mobile gaming isn't entirely freemium trash. It's also true that a hell of a lot of freemium trash exists in mobile gaming and curation remains a problem.

 

[Hektor]

Yeah, It's not so much a "is this fair?" as it is a "people just won't pay, and i hope to make up the difference by volume of sales".

The reason why the average mobilegamer won't pay is because there are so many free alternatives tho.

Same with the "Waiting for Humble Bundle/PSplus", it's only a thing because people now are used to these services and cheap prices.

It's a grave the market - especially the mobile and indiemarket - himself shoveled.

Tho, with games like the witness we see some of them trying to change that again. The future will ultimately tell us wether or not they'll be successful.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

I think if a game launches on one platform, and is ported to others later, it's fair to assume that the original release will be used to make the best return, and so later ports should be priced at a reduced rate, as they are mostly profit.

If a game is launched on multiple systems at the same time however, then they all share the weight, and so can be justifiably higher.

Should mobile versions be cheaper? Almost always yes, because they are ports after the fact. They were not the original revenue source for the investment, which should have profited on its own. This aside from the fact that no one is paying £40 for a mobile phone game, though apparently millions are happy to spend that on an item inside a mobile game.

 

[HotHamBoy]

I edited the OP to clarify and expand.

 

[Dunkley]

Price is a function of the market and the mobile market won't bear those prices.

That is exactly true, I mean we are looking at a market where games that cost $3.99 get slammed for having the audacity to sell a level pack for $2 and end up with ridicolous percentages of piracy due to people not wanting to even pay $4 for a game.

The reason why they should is because the market they are trying to sell their product in won't bear any higher prices than what they are used to, and sadly due to freemium stuff which is instead coated in IAPs, the limit is really low there.

 

[LewieP]

I don't know about "should", but the reason they are typically cheaper is because being cheaper results in higher revenues.

Likely because the bulk of the market for mobile/tablet games is not people who bought the device primarily for gaming, but people with a light interest in gaming. They will spend a little bit of money on impulse purchases, but they will not put down $60 for a game, no matter how good it is.

This is a decent analysis from someone with a good understanding of the subject.

 

[kinoki]

If you want to make money as best you can you price the product according to the market. iOS and PC have two very different markets.

I think we all value a game on iOS less than PC. In a year the iOS version might be unplayable due to an update and render the game unplayable. We might switch phones to an Android next year. The PC game continues to be playable for years to come. These things factor in.

 

[HotHamBoy]

I think F2P is becoming so prevelant everywhere because even .99 cents is a barrier to entry. By charging nothing you get the game into as many hands as possible, because no one need worry about wasting a cent. From there people can decide if it's something they want to spend money on. The problem is when this starts to effect your game design. The F2P model a lot of developers employ tends to ruin an otherwise good game. There's no option to just pay to remove said model because the game isn't built for that.

I miss shareware. Some of the more recent F2P trends I've seen that have been positive: Pay to remove ads. Pay to remove energy. Pay for a "coin doubler," which effectively turns the grind from chore to fun. These are good methods for the consumer and the game design but I wonder how many people actually end up spending the money for the privelage. I think the method of making the first few levels or hour completely free, with a charge to unlock more or the remainder, seems fair to all. If you like the game you're gonna pay, but if you don't like it then you don't feel burned. It also cuts down on piracy.

 

[tuxfool]

I miss shareware. Some of the more recent F2P trends I've seen that have been positive: Pay to remove ads. Pay to remove energy. Pay for a "coin doubler," which effectively turns the grind from chore to fun. These are good methods for the consumer and the game design but I wonder how many people actually end up spending the money for the privelage. I think the method of making the first few levels or hour completely free, with a charge to unlock more or the remainder, seems fair to all. If you like the game you're gonna pay, but if you don't like it then you don't feel burned. It also cuts down on piracy.

All this is true. Unfortunately it still won't allow higher prices on Mobile. See the Monument Valley whining.

 

[RootCause]

If you want to make money as best you can you price the product according to the market. iOS and PC have two very different markets.

I think we all value a game on iOS less than PC. In a year the iOS version might be unplayable due to an update and render the game unplayable. We might switch phones to an Android next year. The PC game continues to be playable for years to come. These things factor in.

Not only that, but thanks to Apple's policy, any game or app can be removed from the store at any moment, to make things worse, they also get removed from your purchase history. Meaning that the money you put on the game is lost, without the possibility of a refund.

 

[redcrayon]

The mentality seems to be extending to consoles now. $40 is too much for The Witness? I won't pay more than $15 for an indie game? Wait for Plus? We need to start supporting our developers or the future is episodic, microtransaction hell.

I agree that some positions seem a little odd (particularly assigning values to 'indie' when it's meaningless in terms of quality, team size, budget or talent). But there is a huge amount of stuff being released now, and competition makes it a buyer's market. Outside of a couple of launch-day purchases to support the devs of my favourite games, I've got a wishlist with about 30 titles on it. They can't all be entitled to a launch day, full-price purchase, otherwise I'd have no money for anything else.

Essentially, more games than ever are being released, and at a variety of prices rather than just £40 boxed sales. My annual spend is remaining constant yet I'm buying more games as competition over pricing means that the average price I am paying is going down. I have noticed that the launch price of indie games on PC/PSN is going up to compensate for the eventual sale price though. That's the developers reacting to the market that reacted to having so many developers.
/circle of life

EDIT: A clarification - this topic is regarding why should, not why they must. We know why prices are the way they are, but let's examine the mentality that gets us there. I feel that it isn't going away, only becoming worse as it starts to creep beyond mobile and into other platforms. Why should a game cost what it does and what should keep it from costing more than a certain pricepoint? Look at Digimon Cybersleuth - $40 on Vita, $60 on PS4. Same game, $20 tax for 1080p60. Should the Vita version cost more or the PS4 version cost less? Or are the prices right for both?

I've often wondered this, portable titles tend to have a lower RRP as a starting point, based on what Sony/Nintendo thought they could get away with. Every generation, portable RRPs have tried to go up by a fiver at the start of the gen, and consoles by up to a tenner, before settling on a mild increase on the gen before in the middle of the cycle, and crashing towards the end. Multiformat Vita game prices are probably also capped by competition with the more successful 3DS software, whereas the PS4 edition benefits from standing alongside other PS4 software and competing with XBO software at the higher price.

Unless the Vita version was a port with far fewer staff/costs, I don't see why the PS4 version should technically cost more, but it's the market that dictates the highest price that the publisher can get away with, not how much work they put in. You can't separate the two into just what the product is, when they compete (and have to try to be profitable) in different sectors, The publisher wants the highest price possible but knows that what consumers will pay varies by platform.

 

[Tertullian]

I have Crashlands on my AppShopper account and I'm waiting for a price drop on iPad. #partoftheproblem?

 

[Vincent Grayson]

I agree that some positions seem a little odd (particularly assigning values to 'indie' when it's meaningless in terms of quality, team size, budget or talent). But there is a huge amount of stuff being released now, and competition makes it a buyer's market. Outside of a couple of launch-day purchases to support the devs of my favourite games, I've got a wishlist with about 30 titles on it. They can't all be entitled to a launch day, full-price purchase, otherwise I'd have no money for anything else.

Essentially, more games than ever are being released, and at a variety of prices rather than just £40 boxed sales. My annual spend is remaining constant yet I'm buying more games as competition over pricing means that the average price I am paying is going down. I have noticed that the launch price of indie games on PC/PSN is going up to compensate for the eventual sale price though. That's the developers reacting to the market that reacted to having so many developers.
/circle of life


I've often wondered this, portable titles tend to have a lower RRP as a starting point, based on what Sony/Nintendo thought they could get away with. Every generation, portable RRPs have tried to go up by a fiver at the start of the gen, and consoles by up to a tenner, before settling on a mild increase on the gen before in the middle of the cycle, and crashing towards the end. Portable Vita game prices are probably also capped by competition with the more successful 3DS software.

This isn't even remotely true. We've had *one* generation where games in general went up $10 in price. Of course, you've got outliers like SE and Atlus who are perfectly happy to charge more for 3DS titles than anyone else.

What's interesting with the mobile/tablet market in my mind is that it's clearly *not* the device cost playing much of a role. A current smartphone, or a decent tablet both cost more than any available console today. Yet the games for those systems are often a fraction of the price, even for the same game.

At least personally, as I own both tablets/phones capable of gaming, and consoles/a PC as well, I find myself unwilling to play most games on mobile/tablets. To me, they *are* fundamentally lesser and not worth as much money. They don't provide as compelling an experience (so far, I've yet to find something I like better on say, an iPad than my PS4 or PC), and they're hampered by the control options available, expect in rare games that take advantage of the touch interface in an interesting way.

So at least as far as the OP goes, I think the pricing difference is entirely justified, and if mobile games were to become more expensive, it'd just mean I don't waste my money on them at all.

 

[redcrayon]

This isn't even remotely true.We've had *one* generation where games in general went up $10 in price. Of course, you've got outliers like SE and Atlus who are perfectly happy to charge more for 3DS titles than anyone else.

What's interesting with the mobile/tablet market in my mind is that it's clearly *not* the device cost playing much of a role. A current smartphone, or a decent tablet both cost more than any available console today. Yet the games for those systems are often a fraction of the price, even for the same game.

At least personally, as I own both tablets/phones capable of gaming, and consoles/a PC as well, I find myself unwilling to play most games on mobile/tablets. To me, they *are* fundamentally lesser and not worth as much money. They don't provide as compelling an experience (so far, I've yet to find something I like better on say, an iPad than my PS4 or PC), and they're hampered by the control options available, expect in rare games that take advantage of the touch interface in an interesting way.

So at least as far as the OP goes, I think the pricing difference is entirely justified, and if mobile games were to become more expensive, it'd just mean I don't waste my money on them at all.

Really?
NES games were £40 here, SNES games moved to £50 before dropping back down to £40-£45. Wii games were still £40. The RRP of WiiU games is currently £50 on the eshop.
GB/GBA games were £25. DS games then started at £30, and 3DS games had a RRP of £40 at launch and still do on the eshop. These days they are much lower than that if you shop around online, but the RRP has increased for the last two portables.
PSOne games were £25-£30, PS2 around £35-40, PS3 around £40-£45, and PS4 games have a RRP of £55-60.
The prices change over the gen (and tend to dip back down right at the end), but there has been more than 'one' generation where games had a hard increase in base price with a new machine's launch, on both portables and home consoles. Maybe it's a difference in local pricing, but certainly Nintendo's portable games jumped from GBA to DS and then again to 3DS, and it's happened several times on home consoles for them to reach a £50 (WiiU) and £60 (PS4) RRP here.

Edit: I don't begrudge the (often unsuccessful) attempts at price increases at all, the dev costs are huge compared to 20 years ago.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Turok was £70 lol

That'd be like £120 with inflation today

 

[Stone Ocean]

I miss shareware. Some of the more recent F2P trends I've seen that have been positive: Pay to remove ads. Pay to remove energy. Pay for a "coin doubler," which effectively turns the grind from chore to fun. These are good methods for the consumer and the game design but I wonder how many people actually end up spending the money for the privelage. I think the method of making the first few levels or hour completely free, with a charge to unlock more or the remainder, seems fair to all. If you like the game you're gonna pay, but if you don't like it then you don't feel burned. It also cuts down on piracy.

That's the thing I hate the most about gaming in general these days: the death of the demo.

 

[HotHamBoy]

This isn't even remotely true. We've had *one* generation where games in general went up $10 in price. Of course, you've got outliers like SE and Atlus who are perfectly happy to charge more for 3DS titles than anyone else.

What's interesting with the mobile/tablet market in my mind is that it's clearly *not* the device cost playing much of a role. A current smartphone, or a decent tablet both cost more than any available console today. Yet the games for those systems are often a fraction of the price, even for the same game.

At least personally, as I own both tablets/phones capable of gaming, and consoles/a PC as well, I find myself unwilling to play most games on mobile/tablets. To me, they *are* fundamentally lesser and not worth as much money. They don't provide as compelling an experience (so far, I've yet to find something I like better on say, an iPad than my PS4 or PC), and they're hampered by the control options available, expect in rare games that take advantage of the touch interface in an interesting way.

So at least as far as the OP goes, I think the pricing difference is entirely justified, and if mobile games were to become more expensive, it'd just mean I don't waste my money on them at all.

But what about when the game is fundamentally the same and the touch controls are just as good or better? Card games and board games like Ascension are fabulous on a tablet and identical to their PC counterparts. A lot of puzzle and strategy games are, too. There are a lot of games where input and technical limitations are not a factor. There are games I would rather play on my PC on console, when given the option, just as there are a lot of games I'd rather buy on my Vita (like Digimon). Likewise, some games are perfect for tablets or phones. I'd rather be able to play a digital card game on my iPad anywhere I choose than sit stifly at my computer.

Edit: I just saw that Adventures of Mana was released on the app store for $14. I don't know if it's good but it looks gorgeous.

 

[OmegaTreeFish]

The market demands it. That's all there is to it. If they tried to sell at the same price they would hardly sell. It's a terrible market.

It's a shame because I would love games like darkest dungeon, invisible Inc and sunless sea to arrive on the play store and would happily play full price for them.

 

[ViviOggi]

PC/Console indie pricing expectations have nothing to do with the mobile market

 

[Vincent Grayson]

Really?
NES games were £40 here, SNES games moved to £50 before dropping back down to £40-£45. Wii games were still £40. The RRP of WiiU games is currently £50 on the eshop.
GB/GBA games were £25. DS games then started at £30, and 3DS games had a RRP of £40 at launch and still do on the eshop. These days they are much lower than that if you shop around online, but the RRP has increased for the last two portables.
PSOne games were £25-£30, PS2 around £35-40, PS3 around £40-£45, and PS4 games have a RRP of £55-60.
The prices change over the gen (and tend to dip back down right at the end), but there has been more than 'one' generation where games had a hard increase in base price with a new machine's launch, on both portables and home consoles. Maybe it's a difference in local pricing, but certainly Nintendo's portable games jumped from GBA to DS and then again to 3DS, and it's happened several times on home consoles for them to reach a £50 (WiiU) and £60 (PS4) RRP here.

Edit: I don't begrudge the (often unsuccessful) attempts at price increases at all, the dev costs are huge compared to 20 years ago.

I can't speak to price changes in other regions, but at least here in the US, most games were $50 (with the exception of cartridge games that used bigger carts and were more expensive) until the PS3/360 generation at which point they went up $10. I paid $50 for NES games in the same way I paid $50 for PS2 games.

 

[redcrayon]

I can't speak to price changes in other regions, but at least here in the US, most games were $50 (with the exception of cartridge games that used bigger carts and were more expensive) until the PS3/360 generation at which point they went up $10. I paid $50 for NES games in the same way I paid $50 for PS2 games.

Ah I see, no prob. happy to concede the point, my mistake talking about the bonkers fluid pricing in the UK!

 

[patapuf]

The reason why the average mobilegamer won't pay is because there are so many free alternatives tho.

Same with the "Waiting for Humble Bundle/PSplus", it's only a thing because people now are used to these services and cheap prices.

It's a grave the market - especially the mobile and indiemarket - himself shoveled.

Tho, with games like the witness we see some of them trying to change that again. The future will ultimately tell us wether or not they'll be successful.

The PC is an interesting paralel to the mobile market. There are a lot of free games on PC, some of very high quality. Those are also the most profitable game on the platform, by quite a margin. And yet steam and other online stores are still successful with "premium" priced games.

The PC has a few advantages phones don't of course, and the way the appstores work does paid games no favour.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

But what about when the game is fundamentally the same and the touch controls are just as good or better? Card games and board games like Ascension are fabulous on a tablet and identical to their PC counterparts. A lot of puzzle and strategy games are, too. There are a lot of games where input and technical limitations are not a factor. There are games I would rather play on my PC on console, when given the option, just as there are a lot of games I'd rather buy on my Vita (like Digimon). Likewise, some games are perfect for tablets or phones. I'd rather be able to play a digital card game on my iPad anywhere I choose than sit stifly at my computer.

Edit: I just saw that Adventures of Mana was released on the app store for $14. I don't know if it's good but it looks gorgeous.

Yeah, things like Ascension (and in fact, board/games games in general) are basically the only games I tend to play on mobile/tablet outside of things only offered there (like a lot of picross games). Stuff like Adventures of Mana makes me sad. I mean, I bought it, because I can only play it there. But there's a Vita version in Japan, and I'd happily pay $30 for a Vita version over less than half that for a mobile/tablet version for one reason: controls.

Any time a game involves on-screen action and also touching the screen is the only way to play, I'm immediately disappointed. I just don't think it works well, and I wish like hell things like Adventures of Mana and Final Fantasy Dimensions had proper ports to systems with a controller.

 

[Mihos]

Honestly, for me at least.. mobility is a shit platform and the only reason I ever attempt to game on it is because it's cheap and always on me. I wouldn't pay full price to see a movie on a 32 inch screen either

 

[HotHamBoy]

I can't speak to price changes in other regions, but at least here in the US, most games were $50 (with the exception of cartridge games that used bigger carts and were more expensive) until the PS3/360 generation at which point they went up $10. I paid $50 for NES games in the same way I paid $50 for PS2 games.

Hey buddy, you're wrong. I also grew up in the US and most cartridge games from NES-N64 were $60-80 at launch.

Notice, even some of those N64 prices say *after coupon. And this is before inflation.

 

[More_Badass]

XCOM EW - $30 on PC, $10/12 on IOS
Doorkickers - $20 on PC, $5 on IOS
This War of Mine - $15
Transistor - $10
Don't Starve - $10
Papers Please - $8
FTL - $10

In recent years, ports tend to be the mobile games that settle at the high end of the price range.

The Why is easy. People aren't going to pay $20, $30, $40 for a mobile game. At most, around $15, which is where the FF games are priced, The typical "expensive" price for an IOS indie is $5. Prune, Sorcery, 80 Days, etc. Ports are typically priced higher.

 

[Bolivar687]

The race to the bottom is real.

 

[Mivey]

I feel like the way the markets have been constructed, especially the iOS AppStore, has a great deal to do with it. In the end, unless there are really a great many more mobile gamers actually willing to pay those "premium" games than console/PC players paying for the equivalent games (equivalent in terms of production values), the cheaper prices will make the mobile market of secondary interest to anybody not making F2P games. Just look at something like Shadowrun outright abandoning their mobile ports, that would never happen if they sold somewhat well. (And that game was ideal in terms of touch controls, you could basically play it with only a mouse)

 

[Vincent Grayson]

Hey buddy, you're wrong. I also grew up in the US and most cartridge games from NES-N64 were $60-80 at launch.

Notice, even some of those N64 prices say *after coupon. And this is before inflation.

I guess it's easy to forget the SNES/N64 prices since I never owned them myself. But those prices are tremendously influenced by cart size, and don't really counter my basic point: game prices haven't been steadily rising by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[HotHamBoy]

I guess it's easy to forget the SNES/N64 prices since I never owned them myself. But those prices are tremendously influenced by cart size, and don't really counter my basic point: game prices haven't been steadily rising by any stretch of the imagination.

Well, that's true. Yes, there was a bump up to $60 last gen and $35/40 for handhelds, but when you consider inflation and the fact that digital console games run the gamut from $5-$40 while still offering full-sized experiences, games have never been more affordable.

 

[redcrayon]

I guess it's easy to forget the SNES/N64 prices since I never owned them myself. But those prices are tremendously influenced by cart size, and don't really counter my basic point: game prices haven't been steadily rising by any stretch of the imagination.

You're only talking about the US though. It's hard not to balk at that though when I'm looking at clear RRP price increases here in the UK over the last decade, which the digital stores stick slavishly to. In real terms, our online retailers (like Amazon) and supermarkets slash prices of the bigger titles and so keep prices fairly constant, and so the end result (for those buying physical copies) is the same- £40 will get you an AAA console game now, just as it did in 1990, as long as you avoid the high street and PSN etc. However, for anyone interested in digital copies, UK prices are a laughable £60 ($88) for a digital AAA PS4 game, and £40 ($58) for a digital 3DS game, which is why any thread about digital has a small number of UK players explaining why they either avoid it or buy from the US.

I understand that US stores stick closely to a RRP across the board for physical, online retailer and digital copies, which (as well as avoiding having to shop around) has the advantage of being able to make clear comparisons with older prices. But that isn't the same anywhere in Europe where increasing RRPs and increasingly deep discounts to match from some online retailers confuse the issue, so it's worth bearing in mind when discussing pricing on a forum.

Well, that's true. Yes, there was a bump up to $60 last gen and $35/40 for handhelds, but when you consider inflation and the fact that digital console games run the gamut from $5-$40 while still offering full-sized experiences, games have never been more affordable.

Agree, the variety of pricing is healthy. It means that it's gradually becoming apparent that a lower price doesn't necessarily mean a poorer product. Inflation and competition means that console games are so much cheaper (comparatively) than when I was buying two games a year in 1991, even though I look at £60 on PSN and think 'wow that's pricey!'

In terms of fixed numbers, I'm not spending any more on gaming than I did a decade ago but playing so many more games, which I'm putting down to the rise of indie games on consoles and thus a lower average spend.

When I take inflation into account, it's ridiculous. I know that a £40 game in 1990 was expensive, I remember saving for months for them, and that's worth about £89 in today's money (at least according to an inflation calculator at thisismoney.co.uk). Yet I find even £50 to 'sound' pricey for a game now. Weird how the acceptable price point for media for some people (including me, apparently) is fairly stable. CDs and DVDs (previously VHS) seem largely unchanged at around £10-£15 too. I wonder how much of a backlash there would be if Nintendo priced the next Mario game at £90 here!