Game console price cut needed, says Activivision CEO. How about games?

[whome0]

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN3055265120080430

Game console prices may be cut: Activision CEO
The slowing economy will pressure makers of video game consoles to lower their prices, Activision Inc (ATVI.O: Quote, Profile, Research) Chief Executive Bobby Kotick said in an interview on Wednesday.

Ok fine, but how about cutting game prices as well. We here in Europe pay 50-60 euros per retail game. Quite many gamer actually spend more money on game discs rather than an initial console hardware. Current hardwares are multipurpose machines (games, music, dvd, hidef movies, streaming clients, web browsers, ....).

I think this something to worry about if/when digital distribution is realized in few years. Do downloadable NHL2010 game still cost +50 euros?

 

[Scott_Arm]

I've never really understood why people get so tied up in the price of the console. It's peripherals and games that add up the real cost. I guess it depends how many games you buy. If you rent games and buy only a half dozen, I guess the current pricing is best. I'd be happy to pay more for the console and get games that are $10-15 cheaper. That's probably very unfavourable to the game publishers/devs. Lower priced games might help combat rentals.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I'm sure Activision would love it if Sony, MS and Nintendo would do more to subsidize his corporate profits.

 

[Mintmaster]

It's the entry cost. For small cost items, sticker shock dominates for some reason.

Look at how much people look at the cost of a cell phone, and how much companies advertise it. Who cares? You're going to wind up paying $50 a month for rest of your life, equaling a present value of like $10,000. Buying the newest iPhone every 3 years instead of some crap phone increases your cost of ownership by only 30% or so, which is astoundingly small for the difference between the basic model and extreme luxury.

If people care about initial cost there, they definately will for a console where the recurring cost is far smaller. Also, looking at historical attach rates, I don't think most people spend as much on games/accessories as you guys.

 

[NERO]

This is just a guess without much research backing it, but if you look at console prices versus software prices, the price increases for the latter have not affected revenue (it keeps going up) while the increases on the former have. There is either a real or presumed elasticity in software purchasing, but a console released 5 years later and 100EUR higher than the previous generation shocks consumers.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I've never really understood why people get so tied up in the price of the console. It's peripherals and games that add up the real cost. I guess it depends how many games you buy. If you rent games and buy only a half dozen, I guess the current pricing is best. I'd be happy to pay more for the console and get games that are $10-15 cheaper. That's probably very unfavourable to the game publishers/devs. Lower priced games might help combat rentals.

For me the major point is that games arnt that cheap in general. As far as consoles go nintendo is the only one that I think sells its games at a decent price at 50 euro's. The whole idea with many people is that you buy the system and the builder makes money on royalties from the (more expensive) games. But than you suddenly have someone like sony asking 600 euro's for the machine and 65+ euro's for games. That shocks people I think.

I personally think game prices should go down, mainly in europe. I think its insane that I have to pay 50 euro's for super mario galaxy while japanese pay 28 euro's and americans 32 euro's. As I see it, the JAP/US prices are fine (for me as a european if you convert it) but I always feel a bit ripped off, especially with the 60 euro games.

 

[eastmen]

Alot of people are able to put the original cost of the console out of their minds a few months after purchase. I don't know anyone who goes into a store and says well I bought the xbox 360 at $400 bucks a year ago so I gotta watch how many games I buy now. I do however know alot of people who don't want to spend even $50 bucks more on something if they don't have to . To many people the pro 360 at $370 is fine . However if they can get it with a $50 price drop to them thats a free game or a free controller.

$370 bucks can also be a large amount of thier play money and surely there are other things to spend money on. Gas in my area went up 30 cents in 2 weeks that starts to add up

 

[liolio]

I do agree price of new gen software is insane here!

I can buy an arcade system + 2 games + 60euro of rebate on GTA IV for 200euros.

Good title on 360 is ~60 euros on the ps3 ~70 euros.
Who can argue that the hard is expensive...

I completely agree with tongue of calib a game should ~50 euros (they are cheaper than that on PC).

 

[Turok]

I hate how 360 and PS3 games such as Call of Duty 4 cost 60 dollars while its PC counterpart is 50. What's the deal?

 

[dobwal]

Games is one of the cheaper forms of digital entertainment when compared to others in the same field more so if you are a hardcore gamer, less so if you are a casual gamer.

If you bought a 360 or PS3 for $400.00 and bought 25 games at full price over this generation and spent an average of 15 hours on each title. The cost breaks down to about $5.40

If you bought 10 games and spend an average of 10 hours, the cost breaks down to about $10.00 an hour.

I spend $60.00 a month on my cable TV bill and over 5 years I could use that investment to buy all three consoles at their current price and about 38 games at full retail at $59.99 (tax rate of 8.25% included).

Furthermore, gaming tends to be a lot more engaging then any other form of digital entertainment which tend to be passive in nature unless you regularly like to sing or dance to the music you purchase or like to act along with every scene of the movies you buy.

Given all the additional revenue streams that exist for things like movies and music, my question is not why gaming is so expensive but how gaming can maintain being so cheap.

Movies have theater sales, DVD sales, rentals and fees generated from cable/regular tv licensing to rely on and music has albums, Itune singles, ringtones, radio fees, licensing fees and concert sales. Games are basically limited to disk sales and rentals.

 

[eastmen]

I hate how 360 and PS3 games such as Call of Duty 4 cost 60 dollars while its PC counterpart is 50. What's the deal?

There is one less party getting money for hte pc version. MS , sony and nintendo all take a cut on each format a game ships.

 

[fallguy]

Games do not need a price drop. Compared to other things that have inflated over the years, games are cheap. People were paying $40 for games 20 years ago. Even when the PS1 came out, games were $40. That was in 1994. 14 years later, they're just $60, $20 more on average. Compare the price of movies.. music.. and any other form of entertainment, and you'll easily see that games are cheap. Not to mention clothes, milk (up over 50% in just the last year), gas, etc. Games havent risen in price like most other things that we use every day.

 

[eastmen]

Games do not need a price drop. Compared to other things that have inflated over the years, games are cheap. People were paying $40 for games 20 years ago. Even when the PS1 came out, games were $40. That was in 1994. 14 years later, they're just $60, $20 more on average. Compare the price of movies.. music.. and any other form of entertainment, and you'll easily see that games are cheap. Not to mention clothes, milk (up over 50% in just the last year), gas, etc. Games havent risen in price like most other things that we use every day.

I think though the average length of games has gone down greatly. Call of duty 4 took 7 hours to beat. I don't remember doom or quake being that short

 

[fallguy]

Maybe not. Yet COD4 has great, great multiplayer. Which goes well beyond 7 hours. Its also a much better single player game than doom or quake, imo.

There are lots of games that you can get a lot more than 7 hours out of even in single player. Oblivion comes to mind. You can put in 100 hours easily.

 

[eastmen]

Maybe not. Yet COD4 has great, great multiplayer. Which goes well beyond 7 hours. Its also a much better single player game than doom or quake, imo.

There are lots of games that you can get a lot more than 7 hours out of even in single player. Oblivion comes to mind. You can put in 100 hours easily.

yes but oblivion is what 3 years old. The next game like that might be fall out which is another year off.

You can argue that cod4 is a much better game than doom or quake , however i can argue I had just as much fun with doom and quake and they lasted much longer and cost less.


So I dunno. I much rather pay $40 bucks a game than $60. I'd pick up almost double the games actually if they wre priced like that

 

[fallguy]

yes but oblivion is what 3 years old. The next game like that might be fall out which is another year off.

You can argue that cod4 is a much better game than doom or quake , however i can argue I had just as much fun with doom and quake and they lasted much longer and cost less.


So I dunno. I much rather pay $40 bucks a game than $60. I'd pick up almost double the games actually if they wre priced like that

You bring up doom, and quake. Both of which are much older than Oblivion, then dismiss Oblivion because its 3 years old? The hypocrisy is astounding. Oblivion is also not 3 years old, for the consoles. Which this discussion is about. Its actually barely a year old for the PS3, and 3 for the 360.

Sure they cost less. They are also PC games, this is a console discussion. Most things in the way back, cost less. The fact is, games havent inflated in price like many daily products, or services that we use.

Who wouldnt want games to be $40, instead of $60? As I stated, games havent risen that much at all, considering the time. The NES came out in 1985, I paid $40 for a lot of the games. Its over 20 years later, and game prices have only risen $20. Thats a far cry from many other things. Care to take a guess at the percentage increase of the average movie ticket price since then? Its a lot more than games.

Nevermind the fact, that many N64 games were $80 when they first came out. Sure it was because the expensive cartridge, and fees to the big N, but prices havent always gone up.

 

[dubyateeeff]

Ok fine, but how about cutting game prices as well. We here in Europe pay 50-60 euros per retail game.

Is this really an issue? I find that new games can usually be found a lot lower than RRP and game prices usually drop so fast you just have to wait a few months to see the price drop another 10€.

Besides, if you can't afford it, you just have to wait until the console is cheaper and you have a large back catalogue of games that retail for half RRP or lower.

Nevermind the fact, that many N64 games were $80 when they first came out. Sure it was because the expensive cartridge, and fees to the big N, but prices havent always gone up.

As I recall Nintendo got caught for inflating the prices. (...) Wow, we had internet back in 2003, click here for a link on the subject.

 

[NRP]

There are lots of games that you can get a lot more than 7 hours out of even in single player. Oblivion comes to mind. You can put in 100 hours easily.

Rainbow Six Vegas 2 SP campaign isn't short either.

 

[eastmen]

You bring up doom, and quake. Both of which are much older than Oblivion, then dismiss Oblivion because its 3 years old? The hypocrisy is astounding. Oblivion is also not 3 years old, for the consoles. Which this discussion is about. Its actually barely a year old for the PS3, and 3 for the 360.

I brought up my quake and doom to back up my point that games used to be longer and less expensive. I don't see any hypocrisy. Back in the early 90s and even thourh the late 90s games on average (imo) were longer. Even crysis was shorter than farcry by about 3 hours for me.

Sure they cost less. They are also PC games, this is a console discussion. Most things in the way back, cost less. The fact is, games havent inflated in price like many daily products, or services that we use.

There are also older nintendo , super nintendo and others that are longer than modern day gaeams. Mario 3 is much longer than mario galaxy's even if you include searching for every star in the game. Heck call of duty 2 was longer than call of duty 4 single player and the multiplayer was top notch at the time.

Who wouldnt want games to be $40, instead of $60? As I stated, games havent risen that much at all, considering the time. The NES came out in 1985, I paid $40 for a lot of the games. Its over 20 years later, and game prices have only risen $20. Thats a far cry from many other things. Care to take a guess at the percentage increase of the average movie ticket price since then? Its a lot more than games.

you can argue that game prices have come down. I bought mario 64 for $70 and smash broes for $90 . However in the last 20 years we have gone from expensive rom carts to cheap discs . We have gone from long exerpiances to shorter ones.

Nevermind the fact, that many N64 games were $80 when they first came out. Sure it was because the expensive cartridge, and fees to the big N, but prices havent always gone up.

Meh , I know that over the last 2 generations i have bought less and less games because there is less value in all of them. Look at heavenly sword. You can beat it in 6 hours and they charge 60 bucks for it. For me games have gone up $10 bucks since the ps1 and saturn days of buying games while the amount of time required to beat them has gone down.

 

[sevanig]

Maybe that explains the absence of Activision at E3 this year...