Black Dragon37
Newcomer
Are next-gen games pricing themselves out of the market?
Impulse Power
- Thread starter Black Dragon37
- Start date
When the "yes" and "no" does have equal number of votes (at the moment) in such a hardcore board I think it is all said.
But I can talk by experience when I say that myself and most (if not al) think that games are over priced and those who play would buy much more games, many others just dont play because consoles/games are so costly.
It isnt the case that people dont like games, eg cell phones games are very popular but they also cost up to 1/15 of the price of a normal one and already have all the HW they need, and beforeyou say it is because the like more this kind of game that is not the (main) reason because those people would pay 50$ for them neither did it on the past.
Like I always said price is one of the major problems on games.
But I can talk by experience when I say that myself and most (if not al) think that games are over priced and those who play would buy much more games, many others just dont play because consoles/games are so costly.
It isnt the case that people dont like games, eg cell phones games are very popular but they also cost up to 1/15 of the price of a normal one and already have all the HW they need, and beforeyou say it is because the like more this kind of game that is not the (main) reason because those people would pay 50$ for them neither did it on the past.
Like I always said price is one of the major problems on games.
I would be intersted in how many HD DVD movies you have for comparisons sake
For me the price is only outrageous if I don't like the game, otherwise, I don't care. I am easily in the thousands of dollars on games, one look at my list will give you a clue as to how much I have spent (I have yet to rent or borrow a 360 game). But I look at it like this, my son has gotten hundreds of hours of gaming in on Kameo, its his own personal Oblivion if you will. I think the $50 I spent on the game was well worth it. I also don't mind paying for every single XBLA title that has come out so far. Actually, thats not true, I did fell like I got ripped off with Bankshot Billiards (I didn't get it for free in the premium XBL kit). At the same time I didn't wan't to pay $35 for New SMB on the DS.
So, in my case it depends on the medium. $15 ceiling for XBLA, $35 is my upper limit for DS gaming and really I only want to spend $25, while $70 upper limit for Console gaming.
The question I would ask the author is even if MSFT lowered their fees, does he honestly believe those savings would be passed on to us? I remember paying months of allowance to buy a SINGLE neogeo game. I also remember just a short while ago N* cartridges retailing between $65-85.
I have 12 HD DVD's 8 of them from BB rewards zone points and price matched to $19.99. 2 came free with the player and I bought 2 more for $19.99 each. $19.99 is my limit for HD DVD's unless it's a box set ofcourse.
Like I said for certain games, I don't care but there have been a few games that would be cool to have but couldn't justify $59.99 for them.
I may think this on the other way, personally I, like RobertR1, would probably buy much more games (2x+) if they are 1/2 of the price, plus I know more people that just didnt play becuse it is too expensive wouldnt, even without "new gamers" this would (Ithink) make more proffit than selling games at this price.
Things sell more at a low price that is why CDs/DVDs all go to low prices, it is because it gives more proffit this way.
No. It's a pretty basic cost/benefit for me. MGS3 was fifty bucks. I played it once and it took 14 hours. A totally enthralling 14 hours. Fifty bucks not bad.
Final Fantasy 3 - on snes- cost me 70 dollars in 1994. Played thru it on back then and again I think 4 years ago. At roughly 60 hours a play 70 bucks is a steal. Gran Turismo 4 was 40 dollars plus 150 dollars for that amazing wheel. I have countless hours clocked up on that. The 190 dollar investment is a pittance.
Meanwhile there is no lack of budgetr options for a resourcesful gamer. I got 3 PS2 game for 16 dollars the other day. One was junk one was kinda fun and one is turnign out to be really prety good (Primal. Exploration/adventure. $2.99 at EB. Try it.) so my 16 bucks is doing good so far for entertainment money.
Videogames have always been a very good value for the entertainment dollar. They are getting bigger and more expensive and dare I say better. If you don't like it you can go buy a Wii and waggle that thingie around.
Final Fantasy 3 - on snes- cost me 70 dollars in 1994. Played thru it on back then and again I think 4 years ago. At roughly 60 hours a play 70 bucks is a steal. Gran Turismo 4 was 40 dollars plus 150 dollars for that amazing wheel. I have countless hours clocked up on that. The 190 dollar investment is a pittance.
Meanwhile there is no lack of budgetr options for a resourcesful gamer. I got 3 PS2 game for 16 dollars the other day. One was junk one was kinda fun and one is turnign out to be really prety good (Primal. Exploration/adventure. $2.99 at EB. Try it.) so my 16 bucks is doing good so far for entertainment money.
Videogames have always been a very good value for the entertainment dollar. They are getting bigger and more expensive and dare I say better. If you don't like it you can go buy a Wii and waggle that thingie around.
i voted 'yes', but with the following remark:
i have no issue paying $60 for a must-have title. i've paid way more for select titles. what i do have an issue with, though, is every goddam high-profile game being priced in that range. so something that otherwise should have all the chances of an easy buy eventually ends up a 'no buy' because its price positions it in a totally different category - the one for titles with special stature. all in all, i think that unless the publisher is totally positive of the hit status of the title being published, they should think twice before slapping it with a hefty pricetag.
i have no issue paying $60 for a must-have title. i've paid way more for select titles. what i do have an issue with, though, is every goddam high-profile game being priced in that range. so something that otherwise should have all the chances of an easy buy eventually ends up a 'no buy' because its price positions it in a totally different category - the one for titles with special stature. all in all, i think that unless the publisher is totally positive of the hit status of the title being published, they should think twice before slapping it with a hefty pricetag.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bear in mind that while the cost of entry and ownership are going up, so are the capabilities. The games get more expensive, while simultaneously they are bringing older games or smaller-but-still-fun ones in less expensively. Not to mention demos to know if you WANT to buy a game, video and music-playing capabilities to mess around with a machine otherwise, communication with friends, and--of course--more games with more online multiplayer to get more than you used to out of the games you DO buy. All of which gives more value to the customer for their money, more paying AND playing options, and the easier ability to see what games they DO want, and be satisfied with other options until they get there--or, more importantly, until they get to a "Greatest Hits"-type cost. 
Inflation- and lifestlye-adjusted, people USED to pay this much and more for their consoles and games, only now they do an assload more for them.
The industry is starting to really morph now--including from the various costs and angles--but are they "pricing themselves out?" Not in the slightest.
Inflation- and lifestlye-adjusted, people USED to pay this much and more for their consoles and games, only now they do an assload more for them.
The industry is starting to really morph now--including from the various costs and angles--but are they "pricing themselves out?" Not in the slightest.
elementOfpower
Newcomer
I don't see what all the fuss is about. I still remember paying $49.99 apiece for Mike Tyson's Punch Out and Legend of Zelda on the 8-bit NES, and I seriously doubt those games had production costs the like of what Epic has while designing Gears of War.
Although I'd love to see a price drop, one is delusional if they think the prices of games have seriously gone up over the years. When you take inflation into account, they really haven't gone up much (if any) at all. I think some of us have forgotten over time that the Sega Genesis once sported a 189.99$ price tag, and it didn't include an analog controller, network card, dvd player, etc.
Things haven't changed much. Sony may be pushing the envelope a little with the PS3's pricetag, but people will continue spending significant amounts of cash on consoles/console games because they've always done it in the past.
Although I'd love to see a price drop, one is delusional if they think the prices of games have seriously gone up over the years. When you take inflation into account, they really haven't gone up much (if any) at all. I think some of us have forgotten over time that the Sega Genesis once sported a 189.99$ price tag, and it didn't include an analog controller, network card, dvd player, etc.
Things haven't changed much. Sony may be pushing the envelope a little with the PS3's pricetag, but people will continue spending significant amounts of cash on consoles/console games because they've always done it in the past.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bigus Dickus
Regular
Colecovision cartriges were often around the $50 mark, Zaxxon's being a bit more IIRC, and this in the 80's.
Some people also forget the console that started us all off--when adjusted for inflation alone--cost almost $650 in today's dollars (and probably looks worse in other price comparison indexes), and that people are quite willing to spend $300 for a stylish metal-and-plastic device that plays music. Oh, and rently, videos too!
No to mention all of the players will simply adjust their prices as need be so they CAN'T "price themselves out." They do have the ability to hurt their profit margins by guessing incorrectly, though.
No to mention all of the players will simply adjust their prices as need be so they CAN'T "price themselves out." They do have the ability to hurt their profit margins by guessing incorrectly, though.
repost:
I think having one set price($50) for games hurts the integrity of the game design and vision of the developers. Having to make a game that fit's into or attains a set perceived value based on the $50 price point will cause developers to either remove or add stuff that they might not have otherwise.
Giving the developers the ability to create games that hit whatever price point they choose would allow them to create games that appeal to everyones tastes more accurately,and more accurately reflect their vision for the game.Instead of setting a price first then designing the game ,devs should be left to make the game first ,then set the price after it's done.
The problem is not that there are $50 games,it's that there are only $50 games.
If there were $20,$30 or $40 games, I might even be more inclined to buy the odd $60 or $70 game once in awhile.
I think having one set price($50) for games hurts the integrity of the game design and vision of the developers. Having to make a game that fit's into or attains a set perceived value based on the $50 price point will cause developers to either remove or add stuff that they might not have otherwise.
Giving the developers the ability to create games that hit whatever price point they choose would allow them to create games that appeal to everyones tastes more accurately,and more accurately reflect their vision for the game.Instead of setting a price first then designing the game ,devs should be left to make the game first ,then set the price after it's done.
The problem is not that there are $50 games,it's that there are only $50 games.
If there were $20,$30 or $40 games, I might even be more inclined to buy the odd $60 or $70 game once in awhile.
Thread reminds me of a quote...
"What other entertainment medium that's mass-market is at $60 a pop? I would kill to have a game that's jam-packed with an amazing story and amazing moments and four hours long and costs 20 bucks. I think video game prices need to go down. $50 is far too much for an impulse buy. $60 is completely out of the question." - CliffyB
"What other entertainment medium that's mass-market is at $60 a pop? I would kill to have a game that's jam-packed with an amazing story and amazing moments and four hours long and costs 20 bucks. I think video game prices need to go down. $50 is far too much for an impulse buy. $60 is completely out of the question." - CliffyB
In certain instances, yes. When games like NHL 2K7 are released at such significant prices differences then I don't see how people can be expected to pay such a huge mark up for a next gen game.
NHL 2K7 Xbox/PS2 $20
http://www.ebgames.com/product.asp?product_id=210986
NHL 2K7 Xbox 360 $60
http://www.ebgames.com/product.asp?product_id=200220
Is the 360 version 3 times better?
Thread reminds me of a quote...
"What other entertainment medium that's mass-market is at $60 a pop? I would kill to have a game that's jam-packed with an amazing story and amazing moments and four hours long and costs 20 bucks. I think video game prices need to go down. $50 is far too much for an impulse buy. $60 is completely out of the question." - CliffyB
Unfortunately there is very few with the same opinion, or with the courage to do the change of such (with a big risk).
It does have 3x the rez, and maybe a few more polys.
Anyway (if I am going OT please edit this), I wonder if Wii, once it is much closer from this last gen than next gen, will have lower priced games.
One last note is that this low price is a also a effectt of what starts to look like a somewhat massmarket product because I am quite sure they do much more proffit from the PS2/360 version at 20$ but with a user base of 120M+ users than selling the 360 version at 60$ to a (much?) less than 10M users base (even with a higher selling ratio).
Last edited by a moderator:
ShootMyMonkey
Veteran
I seriously doubt that the Xbox/PS2 version was $20 when new, and the fact that the 360 version is still the same $60 as it was when it came out has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with your assessment of quality or anybody else's. It simply means that the retailers can still manage to sell that game at about the same rate at $60 even now.
The fact that people were willing to pay $75-80 a game back in the cartridge days does suggest that the market will bear pretty high prices. And even though the media is so much cheaper these days, you can still carry justification on the heels of fancy words like "next-gen," which is actually made easier by the fact that the public actually believes they're more knowledgeable than in the past.
Notably, he doesn't actually say it's possible. I can maybe see UT2k7 selling dirt cheap because UT is little more than a demonstration springboard to help sell UE licenses. In reality, if every dime of that money went to the developer+publisher, then $20 a copy would be an increase in most cases.
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe platform owners like MS,Nintendo or Sony should implement flexible liscence fees. For example $1 fee for every $10 MSRP.
Sony at least already has a sliding royalty scale for PS2. That's the only reason people can offer "budget games".
I have no idea what the current X360/PS3 model is, I'm too far out of the loop these days.