Do Video Games Cost Too Much? [Slashdot]

[Bojay1997]

There were a few "budget" N64 games toward the end of it's life. If I remember correctly, Ms. Pac-Man Maze Madness was released for $29.99. Several others too, including the awful Powerpuff Girls: Chemical X-Traction. On the N64, compared to the typical $40 to $60 games, I consider $30 a budget release.




Metal Gear Solid and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time both had equally high production values and were both released in late 1998. Metal Gear Solid retailed for $40 to $50, while Ocarina of Time retailed for $60.

According to all the PlayStation fanatics I dealt with in the late 1990s, MGS cost maybe $2 to manufacture, while Ocarina of Time cost maybe $20 to manufacture. That means, according to all the nitwit PS fanatics, they were paying 20-25 times the manufacturing cost for MGS, while N64 players were only paying roughly 3 times the manufacturing cost. Who was getting ripped off worse? Would you rather pay 25 times the cost of something or 3 times the cost of something?

Believe me, I know this is a stupid, stupid argument. I'm just pointing out how dumb and annoying PlayStation fans were in the late 1990s. I worked at Electronics Boutique and had to deal with hundreds of them on a daily basis. Imagine if you heard this argument every day of your life:

"The PlayStation is better than the N64 because the games only cost 1/10th the price to manufacture than cartridges."

Really? So who's the moron who's paying $40 for a $1 disc?


Obviously, these people were too stupid to factor in production costs.

Actually, those Playstation fans had a point as disc based games allowed publishers to drop the price of those titles much more quickly after the initial demand had waned (and presumably development costs had been covered), thus allowing even more profit on the price drops to $40 and then $20 that Playstation titles inevitably saw. Frankly, Nintendo has finally embraced that point by releasing a system which uses normal sized optical discs and keeping their pricing point for A-list games to $50. They also seem to be pretty tolerant of third parties who want to discount games to other price points such as $30 or even $20 on or shortly after release.

There was no reason for Nintendo to stick with a cartridge based format as late as they did, nor did they have to create a custom disc format for the Gamecube. Those decisions limited the interest of third party developers who didn't like the idea of having to deal with Nintendo controlling replication and licensing. A publisher which released a game on the N64 which didn't sell well was stuck not only with the development costs, but also a stock of unsold cartridges which cost between $10 and $20 each to replicate and package. A publisher with a poorly selling disc based game might still have to deal with the loss in development costs, but their replication and packaging costs would be a fraction of those for a cartridge and theoretically, they could still make a little money even if the game was sold at $20 retail.

Those bad design decisions and attempts to control third party publishers are still haunting the Wii as a new generation of low-end third party developers either release total junk for the system or limit A-list releases figuring that they won't appeal to Nintendo's core audience. I'm glad Sega is finally getting into releasing some games that will appeal to older gamers, but I can only imagine what kinds of genre pushing titles we could be seeing if Nintendo didn't keep the door closed for so long.

[Nature Boy]

You're right, a lot of games were twenty-forty dollars. Usually after they'd been out a while. Atari 2600 cartridges later dropped in price as well, as White Knight pointed out in 1982 the average price was 40.00.

I seem to remember my dad paying around $90 CAD for Space Invaders when it was released for the 2600. In today's dollar's that's *outrageous* By the time these prices were around (I don't remember them at all) we were Atari 400 users, and didn't bother buying VCS games anymore (want to guess why?)

[Nature Boy]

There was no reason for Nintendo to stick with a cartridge based format as late as they did, nor did they have to create a custom disc format for the Gamecube.

Their reason for both decisions is easy: piracy.

It's a hell of a lot easier to pirate a CD based game than it is a Cart.

[Bojay1997]

Their reason for both decisions is easy: piracy.

It's a hell of a lot easier to pirate a CD based game than it is a Cart.

Right, because pirated carts and devices to play "back-ups" off various discs and memory devices were not available for Nintendo based systems. Give me a break. If you really want to control piracy, there are other ways to do it besides creating custom formats.

[Rob2600]

Right, because pirated carts and devices to play "back-ups" off various discs and memory devices were not available for Nintendo based systems. Give me a break.

Yes, cartridge copiers existed, but...


When I worked at EB, I was shocked by the number of customers who pirated PlayStation games. Even children and their parents came into the store asking for mod chips. I'd ask why and they'd say, "To play copied games." I'd have to explain to them that copying games - and buying copied games - was illegal.

But that's how commonplace PlayStation piracy was...even children and non-gaming parents thought copying PS games was a perfectly normal thing, just like recording music off the radio onto an audio cassette tape or recording TV shows onto a VHS tape.


Dreamcast piracy had gotten crazy, too. I remember guys would sell copied Dreamcast games at the Fun N Games arcade for $5 each. "You don't even need a mod chip, they're self-booting!"


By comparison, I've never had one single customer come into my store asking how to copy N64 games, nor have I ever seen anyone selling copied N64 games in person, nor have I ever known anyone with an N64 game copier. I'm sure an N64 bootleg market existed, but as far as I know, it was nowhere near as widespread as the PlayStation and Dreamcast bootleg market.

[Jorpho]

Right, because pirated carts and devices to play "back-ups" off various discs and memory devices were not available for Nintendo based systems. Give me a break. If you really want to control piracy, there are other ways to do it besides creating custom formats.Bootleg N64 carts were reportedly too expensive to be profitable. Clearly this trend did not hold for the DS or GBA.

[Letiumtide]

No, but then again I only purchase new what I am willing to support. If it is a game that I want and I wish to support the company and creators in order to recieve more titles of that variety, then it will be done.

For the most part I'd say they're a little too high, but when I think in retrospect to the price of Final Fantasy III for the SNES when it came out at $100, I'd say it's not too bad.

Would they make more sales if it was cheaper? Perhaps, I don't know if it would be enough to sway people into purchasing the game new though. Maybe it would, it wouldn't change my habits though.

[BHvrd]

No, but then again I only purchase new what I am willing to support. If it is a game that I want and I wish to support the company and creators in order to recieve more titles of that variety, then it will be done.

For the most part I'd say they're a little too high, but when I think in retrospect to the price of Final Fantasy III for the SNES when it came out at $100, I'd say it's not too bad.

Would they make more sales if it was cheaper? Perhaps, I don't know if it would be enough to sway people into purchasing the game new though. Maybe it would, it wouldn't change my habits though.

I can understand this line of thinking, but when it comes to companies *cough*Sega*cough* (whom I adore), their crap to gem ratio is a tad on the crap a bit too often. I try to support them but only when I know their on the right track and with Sega you can usually tell just by reading a one page article.

LotR: Conquest is a game I recently bought to support, cause there is no other game like it for this gen and I loved Star Wars Battlefront and it isn't nearly as bad as people go on about, especially if you like SWB.

So yeah I tend to support companies the same way as you say, but always gotta be a little cautious and make sure their effort was at least valiant, I will even bypass AAA titles to support.

[Zap!]

In the northeastern NJ area, from 1988 to 1990, my parents generally paid $50 to $65 for new NES games (Double Dragon, Super Mario Bros. 2, Super Mario Bros. 3, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Arcade Game, Mega Man II, etc.). This was at Toys R Us, Bradlees, Caldor, Consumers, Video Dynasty, and Video Game Depot.

Some of the older, less popular NES games were reduced to around $40, but overall, the stores we went to charged $50 to $60 for new, popular NES games.

Likewise for SNES games (1991 to 1995), except for some of the super-popular games. My parents bought Street Fighter II: The World Warrior for $85 from Electronics Boutique at Willowbrook Mall. Also, my friend bought every SNES RPG that was released in the U.S. and often paid over $75 each. Games like Batman Returns, Contra III, Final Fight, and F-Zero were usually $60 each.

In 1997, I bought Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island at K-B Toys for $30. The N64 had already been out for several months.

When the N64 came out, Super Mario 64 and Pilotwings 64 were $60 each at Toys R Us. Once stores realized the N64 was the hot thing that Christmas season, they jacked up the game prices to $75...sometimes $85. It was ridiculous. The Funco Land at Willowbrook Mall charged $75 for Killer Instinct Gold that first Christmas. If I remember correctly, Turok: Dinosaur Hunter was the last N64 game that stores charged crazy, rip-off prices for.

Toys R Us sold Mario Kart 64 for $60 in early 1997. Star Fox 64 was also $60 when it was released in mid 1997 and that came with the Rumble Pak. For a while, $50 to $60 was the standard price for N64 games. In the beginning of 1999, many N64 games were being released for $40 to $50. At the time, the big name PlayStation games were being released for $40 and most budget games were around $20.

I remember in the late 1990s, PlayStation fanatics bashed the N64 because the games were supposedly way too expensive (at the time, $40 PS vs. $50 N64). Their argument was that the PlayStation was so much better because the games only cost 1/10th the price to manufacture, compared to N64 games. My response was, "If that's true, how come PlayStation games don't cost 1/10th the price of N64 games?"

Anyway, my point is that PlayStation fanatics complained about the crazy prices of N64 games and boasted about how much cheaper PS games were because they used CDs instead of cartridges. Fine. So how come now that every Xbox 360 and PS3 game is released on optical disc instead of cartridge, the prices have gone back up to N64 levels? What happened to the whole "discs are sooo much cheaper than cartridges" argument from 10 years ago?

Well, at least Nintendo is keeping it cheap. I have yet to see a single Wii game cost more than $50, not including games that came with accessories (Guitar Hero, Rock Band, etc.). Even huge names like Zelda: Twlight Princess and Super Mario Galaxy were only $49.99.

BTW, are you positive major chain stores jacked up the prices once the N64 became popular? Because corporate stores don't do that (they all kept the Wii at 249.99 when they could have sold it for twice that), nor do I remember it happening.

[Zap!]

I don't see why anyone feeling the pinch of game costs should take any solace in candy bar prices. That's like saying, well, in China you might get arrested for speaking out against the government, but they should be happy and not complain because in North Korea they might be executed for the same thing.

Logic, you just don't get it.

And unless you run the The Luxor, average hourly electricity costs are nowhere near 60 cents an hour, much less "almost...more." Do you pay $432 a month in electricity?

Math, you just don't get it.

Actually, he does get it. He said a candy bar has almost doubled since 1998. Lot's of things in America have. Yet games gave stayed the same or around the same price for years. That's something to be grateful for. Hell, some 2600 games in 1980 were $40. How much was the original VCS in 1977? Hell, 30 years later, the Wii was $249, the same price.

[boatofcar]

Actually, he does get it. He said a candy bar has almost doubled since 1998. Lot's of things in America have. Yet games gave stayed the same or around the same price for years. That's something to be grateful for. Hell, some 2600 games in 1980 were $40. How much was the original VCS in 1977? Hell, 30 years later, the Wii was $249, the same price.



First of all, I've never seen a candy bar cost a buck that wasn't King Size. If you're paying that much, shop at a different store.

Second, as I stated above, technology things always decrease in price as time goes on. Video games don't have to cost $60, just as CDs don't have to cost $24.99 like they did in the late 90's at a ton of record chains. The sooner consumers wise up to this, the better.

[Sonicwolf]

I seem to remember my dad paying around $90 CAD for Space Invaders when it was released for the 2600. In today's dollar's that's *outrageous* (want to guess why?)

I remember when Nintendo 64 games were 84.99CDN. The PS2 and Xbox games were 74.99 for a while too. Ridiculous prices. Luckily they have deflated over time in regards to brand new games.

[BydoEmpire]

SMS and NES games from $30:

http://www.huguesjohnson.com/features/sears_catalog/sears-catalog-1988-pg614-SMS_full.jpg

http://www.huguesjohnson.com/features/sears_catalog/sears-catalog-1988-pg615-NES_full.jpg

1983, most games $30:
http://www.retroist.com/2008/12/17/the-video-game-systems-of-the-1983-sears-wishbook/sears-wishbook-video-games-07/

Maybe prices had come down by then at the beginning of the crash, but I do remember Indiana Jones for the 2600 being particularly expensive because it was $40.

[Astrocade]

First of all, I've never seen a candy bar cost a buck that wasn't King Size. If you're paying that much, shop at a different store.

Second, as I stated above, technology things always decrease in price as time goes on. Video games don't have to cost $60, just as CDs don't have to cost $24.99 like they did in the late 90's at a ton of record chains. The sooner consumers wise up to this, the better.

I don't think he's talking about grocery stores/department store prices. Ten years ago, in convenience stores , a regular candy bar was .69/.79 cents. Now a regular (not King Sized) bar will run you anywhere from 1.19-1.29. This is in NC, where the price of most things tends to be cheaper than the rest of the country.

But yes, at Wal-Mart a regular Kit Kat bar can still be had for .79. Ten years ago it was .39.

[boatofcar]

I don't think he's talking about grocery stores/department store prices. Ten years ago, in convenience stores , a regular candy bar was .69/.79 cents. Now a regular (not King Sized) bar will run you anywhere from 1.19-1.29. This is in NC, where the price of most things tends to be cheaper than the rest of the country.

But yes, at Wal-Mart a regular Kit Kat bar can still be had for .79. Ten years ago it was .39.

Ok, fair enough. But I maintain that technology tends to get cheaper over time. Remember how much VHS tapes cost in the early 80s?

[Rob2600]

technology things always decrease in price as time goes on. Video games don't have to cost $60, just as CDs don't have to cost $24.99 like they did in the late 90's at a ton of record chains.

You're right...except in the late 1990s, stores like Sam Goody, Coconuts, Borders, FYE, and Record Town sold full-length CDs for $10 to $18. What stores were charging $25? Or do you mean the late 1980s?

[boatofcar]

You're right...except in the late 1990s, stores like Sam Goody, Coconuts, Borders, FYE, and Record Town sold full-length CDs for $10 to $18. What stores were charging $25? Or do you mean the late 1980s?

Yeah, I meant late 80's. Sorry :embarrassed:

EDIT: But, I do remember some stores charging over $20 for a CD well into the 90s, though admittedly it was the exception rather than the rule. I bought Pocket Full of Kryptonite by The Spin Doctors at a store at the mall (I wish I could remember the name of the store, but they went out of business soon after. I want to say National Record Mart) for $24.99, and the K Mart in my town sold the Saturday Night Fever Soundtrack (1 disc) for $25.

Growing up in West Virginia, we didn't have a lot of competing stores to keep prices down, so maybe things were different in places where there were more music stores. Bigdaddychester, if you read this, do you know what store I'm talking about in the Barboursville Mall? It's where the Chinese Restaurant in the food court is now, where the Taco Bell was before that (I think).

[Rob2600]

Yeah, I meant late 80's. Sorry :embarrassed:

Ah, I figured that's what you meant! :)

My parents bought a CD player in 1987 and I remember CDs selling for around $30 each! They bought a few Beatles and Beach Boys CDs. Fortunately, CD prices dropped steadily during those next five or six years...at least in the northern NJ/NYC area.

[eugenek]

Actually, he does get it. He said a candy bar has almost doubled since 1998. Lot's of things in America have. Yet games gave stayed the same or around the same price for years. That's something to be grateful for. Hell, some 2600 games in 1980 were $40. How much was the original VCS in 1977? Hell, 30 years later, the Wii was $249, the same price.

That's irrelevant. It's completely a red herring. If someone thinks that games are overpriced, how does it change anything that candy bars have increased at a faster rate? Or that college costs have increased at a faster rate than either? You might FEEL better about it, but that obscures the fact that it doesn't change a thing about the original assertion. Just because they've had a merely slower rate of increase (or even no increase) doesn't prove anything. So what if the VCS and Wii cost the same amount? Maybe they're both overpriced.

Now, with that said, I can't be certain they are overpriced. There's a magic intersection between profit margin and sales which maximizes the benefit on both sides, but I don't know what that point is.

[Gentlegamer]

Their reason for both decisions is easy: piracy.

It's a hell of a lot easier to pirate a CD based game than it is a Cart.Nintendo also had to avoid clauses in the contract that remained in place after the aborted Sony "Play Station" deal that would force Nintendo to pay royalties to use the CD format and allow Sony access to Nintendo IP.

[Solertia]

IMO, I don't think X360 and PS3 games should be $60. That's kinda ridiculous. Especially when, for multi-platform games, I could get the PC version - which (in most cases) will perform much better in every way - for $50. So yeah, console games should be at most $50, if not less.

[Zap!]

First of all, I've never seen a candy bar cost a buck that wasn't King Size. If you're paying that much, shop at a different store.

Second, as I stated above, technology things always decrease in price as time goes on. Video games don't have to cost $60, just as CDs don't have to cost $24.99 like they did in the late 90's at a ton of record chains. The sooner consumers wise up to this, the better.

Technology decreases, true. But media and software don't count, only hardware does. People who comlain about a PS3 being $400 today would be up in arms when the same tecnology (it it existed) would cost $100,000 in 1998. That's the only reason technology comes down, it's all about hardware advances. Media technology is not the same. Plus, like someone else said, there are teams and teams of people working on games. It costs much more to produce than in 1982. And even in 1982 you were paying $40 for Pitfall!, while it was worked on by just one guy. So games today are a bargan.

Comparing CD's are totally different. A CD in 1989 is the same as a CD in 2009. A game in 1989 however wass far, far less to make than in 2009.

[Zap!]

That's irrelevant. It's completely a red herring. If someone thinks that games are overpriced, how does it change anything that candy bars have increased at a faster rate? Or that college costs have increased at a faster rate than either? You might FEEL better about it, but that obscures the fact that it doesn't change a thing about the original assertion. Just because they've had a merely slower rate of increase (or even no increase) doesn't prove anything. So what if the VCS and Wii cost the same amount? Maybe they're both overpriced.

Now, with that said, I can't be certain they are overpriced. There's a magic intersection between profit margin and sales which maximizes the benefit on both sides, but I don't know what that point is.

Let's say you made about $280 a week in 1992, when the average game was $50. Now let's say you make $1,000 a week in 2009. Would you still be bitching that the average game in 2009 is just $10 more on a PS3? If yes, then I don't know what to tell ya. Get a Wii. You won't see a game over $50 unless it's packed with an accessery.

[Zap!]

IMO, I don't think X360 and PS3 games should be $60. That's kinda ridiculous. Especially when, for multi-platform games, I could get the PC version - which (in most cases) will perform much better in every way - for $50. So yeah, console games should be at most $50, if not less.

Well you're 19 and you're probably on the broke side, so of course you feel like that. I won't knock you one bit, I said the same thing at your age. I want to see someone complain here that's 30+ and makes a decent amount of money.

[eugenek]

Let's say you made about $280 a week in 1992, when the average game was $50. Now let's say you make $1,000 a week in 2009. Would you still be bitching that the average game in 2009 is just $10 more on a PS3? If yes, then I don't know what to tell ya. Get a Wii. You won't see a game over $50 unless it's packed with an accessery.

You keep pulling in irrelevant information. I can think games are overpriced whether I make $1 or $1000 a week. There's a difference between "I can't afford any games" and "I think games are overpriced." I thought movie theater candy was overpriced in 1992 and I think it's overpriced now even though I make a hell of a lot more money now than when I was 11.

[Zap!]

You keep pulling in irrelevant information. I can think games are overpriced whether I make $1 or $1000 a week. There's a difference between "I can't afford any games" and "I think games are overpriced." I thought movie theater candy was overpriced in 1992 and I think it's overpriced now even though I make a hell of a lot more money now than when I was 11.

So what is a fair price for games in your opinion? $50?

I got a Neo-Geo in November 1990, so after paying $200 per game, everything looks cheap.

[megasdkirby]

Well you're 19 and you're probably on the broke side, so of course you feel like that. I won't knock you one bit, I said the same thing at your age. I want to see someone complain here that's 30+ and makes a decent amount of money.

Well, I'm almost 30 and I made nearly $30,000 last year.

Keep in mind that I don't have any debts, bills are on the low side (I don't consume much) and I don't buy much either...and I STILL think games today are expensive.

Of course, that's me...I've always been super cheap when it comes to money. Heck, I complain about spending $1 buying lunch! :D

I have a question, though. What if, in the future, all games will be in digital format (for example, all games will be available for download ONLY). No more physical media exists. Yet the game still costs $60 to purchase. Is this still acceptable, at least regarding price?

[eugenek]

So what is a fair price for games in your opinion? $50?

I got a Neo-Geo in November 1990, so after paying $200 per game, everything looks cheap.

Well, as I said before, I admittedly don't know what a fair price is. The best price is the optimal intersection of profit margin and demand. If a company could either sell 100 copies of a $60 game at a $10 profit margin for each OR 300 copies of that game for $30 at a $5 profit margin, they should do the latter. (I made those numbers up just to illustrate, I don't know the exact structures). That's the Wal-Mart business model that is so successful...lower the margins but make up the loss in volume. I mean, maybe it IS $60 that is optimal, but seeing as to how Gamestop can rake in record sales discounting used games only $5 in some cases, well, my sense is that there's still a little bit of pricing inefficiency. I would personally like to see a publisher simply lower game prices a little instead of bitching about the used game market.

[chrisbid]

im 32, my wife and i together make over 60k a year.

i talk with my wallet. i have yet to buy a new game at the 60 dollar price point. i will not buy DS or PSP games at 40 dollars, and i rarely buy wii games at 50.

[Rob2600]

What if, in the future, all games will be in digital format (for example, all games will be available for download ONLY). No more physical media exists. Yet the game still costs $60 to purchase. Is this still acceptable, at least regarding price?

$60 for download-only games would be a rip-off. That's why I like WiiWare. There's a very good selection of $10 and $15 games. It's a great price point and the library features many high-quality, well-produced titles. I'm sure the same goes for Xbox Live and PSN.

Even for a complex, full-length, AAA game like Metal Gear Solid 4 or Super Mario Galaxy, I think $35 would be the most I'd spend on a download-only version. Think about it: the publisher isn't paying to have discs, cases, and covers manufactured and shrink-wrapped. The publisher isn't paying shipping costs, either. The game is just files on a remote server. With those expenses gone, why would I still be expected to pay $50 to $60 per game? I imagine publishers would pass along at least some of the savings to us, their customers.


Back to WiiWare though: This is the direction in which I want the game industry to go. For $60, I can buy World of Goo, LostWinds, Mega Man 9, and one of the Strong Bad games...or for $60, I could buy Metal Gear Solid 4. I realize for some people, spending $60 and getting one deep, complex game like MGS 4 is the better value. That's fine. For me though, spending $60 and getting four fun, simple, highly-rated pick-up-and-play games is the better value. I don't have time for long, involved games anymore and am glad quicker, simpler, arcade-style games are making a comeback...and for a much lower price, too! :)

[demen999]

Very good question. I think that it is high, depending the game. Then again it depends how I feel about the game thats worth the money it cost. There are games that you can play endlessly no matter how you look at it (Online games, Racing games, Strategy), that I might not have a problem paying 40-60. I couldn't bring myself to pay 60 for some adventure game that lasts me 5-10 hours. Hell even with the new street fighter, I am trying to decide if 60 is worth it.
I love buying used games, but I also like to support the Game co.'s if I really like them. I hardly have a problem paying 40-50 for a Nintendo brand game, although nothing has caught my eye as of yet. But some game I MIGHT not like and pay 60...dunno.

Clownzilla I wish I was as controlled as you! Spending 20 the most on a game is hard with this generation, tell me your secret!!

[Bojay1997]

$60 for download-only games would be a rip-off. That's why I like WiiWare. There's a very good selection of $10 and $15 games. It's a great price point and the library features many high-quality, well-produced titles. I'm sure the same goes for Xbox Live and PSN.

Even for a complex, full-length, AAA game like Metal Gear Solid 4 or Super Mario Galaxy, I think $35 would be the most I'd spend on a download-only version. Think about it: the publisher isn't paying to have discs, cases, and covers manufactured and shrink-wrapped. The publisher isn't paying shipping costs, either. The game is just files on a remote server. With those expenses gone, why would I still be expected to pay $50 to $60 per game? I imagine publishers would pass along at least some of the savings to us, their customers.


Back to WiiWare though: This is the direction in which I want the game industry to go. For $60, I can buy World of Goo, LostWinds, Mega Man 9, and one of the Strong Bad games...or for $60, I could buy Metal Gear Solid 4. I realize for some people, spending $60 and getting one deep, complex game like MGS 4 is the better value. That's fine. For me though, spending $60 and getting four fun, simple, highly-rated pick-up-and-play games is the better value. I don't have time for long, involved games anymore and am glad quicker, simpler, arcade-style games are making a comeback...and for a much lower price, too! :)

I think you have fundamentally overestimated the cost of replication, packaging and shipping. For most games produced in quantities over 20,000 units, it only costs about $3.00 each to get the discs pressed, the inserts and instructions printed and inserted, the cases sealed and the units shipped to distributors. At larger quantities, this can drop to below $2.00. The cost in games is not the physical media anymore (although this was a valid issue in the previous generations where cartridges and even DVD-Roms were more expensive to produce), it's in the development and marketing. Aside from the fact that Wiiware style games don't appeal to a lot of older and more experienced gamers, they also don't generate the same kind of return that an A-list title can. When games do almost $200 million in first day sales like Halo 3 did, that's serious money, even if development and marketing was over $100 million. Even assuming a Wiiware game sells a million units, at $10 a pop, once you subtract out development and licensing, what's the profit like $3 million? I know that sounds like a lot, but even a small studio is very expensive to run and very few download titles ever sell in the millions. The business model for Wiiware only works for small studios and only works for those lucky few that design a really addictive little game. I personally like that Wiiware and Xbox Live and PSN are available for games of this type, but I don't think the majority of gamers prefer games of that type to real A-list titles.

[TonyTheTiger]

There is something I don't understand and maybe somebody more knowledgeable can enlighten me.

Big budget Hollywood Blockbusters can cost up to $300,000,000 in total to produce. I'm guessing that includes distribution costs, prints and advertising, and other expenses. Even the biggest budget video game doesn't come near this kind of cost. So what's with the incongruity?

Granted, a movie has more sources of income. Movie tickets in addition to DVD sales. But movie tickets even today aren't going entirely to make up the cost of the film. That $10 movie ticket is split first between the movie theater and the film's distributor. The film studio takes a relatively small piece of that pie.

So why is it that Superman Returns, one of the most expensive movies ever made, sold for under $30, yet a game that costs a fraction to produce, distributed on the same media format, in an environment where supposedly everybody is buying video games, sells for double that?

The only thing I can figure is that movie studios make a shit load from movies airing on TV and stuff while game publishers don't have that luxury. But there still seems to be some incongruity there.

[demen999]

"The only thing I can figure is that movie studios make a shit load from movies airing on TV and stuff while game publishers don't have that luxury."

I totally don't understand that either. It's like they are always scrapping at the floor for food or something. Yet Uwe Boll continues to make shitty movie after shitty movie.

[Gentlegamer]

I think another answer is that film studios make money off catalogue sales of their films (these days, principally on DVD). Video games, as software, don't have that kind of "shelf life."

[Bojay1997]

I think another answer is that film studios make money off catalogue sales of their films (these days, principally on DVD). Video games, as software, don't have that kind of "shelf life."

That's a big part of it and rights to catalogue sales typically get sold in chunks which is something I have never seen in the video game world probably because until services like Gametap came along, there was literally no market for games on defunct platforms. The other big part of the equation is that films can make money in just about every part of the world and often do with very little localization save for either subtitles or dubbing which costs surprisingly little to do. Also, even a movie which flops has some value in the cable/premium pay cable/PPV/DVD Rental market. Movies typically don't get resold on the used market (unless you have a wholesale shift in technology like VHS to DVD) multiple times the way a game does (with no money coming back to the developer/publisher) and movie studios get a guaranteed residual when a copy of a movie gets sold to Blockbuster or Hollywood Video on top of the purchase price. A game which fails gets thrown in the bargain bin and is generally never heard from again.

[PapaStu]

i talk with my wallet. i have yet to buy a new game at the 60 dollar price point. i will not buy DS or PSP games at 40 dollars, and i rarely buy wii games at 50.

Then you'll be glad to know that at the no DS or PSP game for 40 bucks that you've got the buying power of 95% of all the new games coming out for the systems. Very few DS games come out at 39 bucks (in fact only one company charges that, SquareEnix, high end Nintendo titles are 34, everything else is 29 or less), and so few PSP games are even coming out now that 39 is almost moot (most are releasing at 29 anyways).

The games are what they are due to licensing costs and the insanely high costs that it takes to make many of the modern games on todays systems. PS3 is not cheap to develop for. XBox 360 isn't cheap to develop for and thus why we have 59 buck games and sequel after sequel because its hard for companies to eat a 300 million dollar loss in the pants because of inital game costs and be viable for more than a release or two.

/end rant

If the game hits at a 59 buck pricepoint and I want it, I'll get it. I might not buy it day 1, but i'll get it. Some other games i'll balk at that price. HotD:Overkill isn't worth 50 to me, and having played about 4/5ths the story mode, i'm glad I didn't buy it at 50. Hard to charge 50 bucks for 2 hours worth of gameplay, replayability be damned.

[demen999]

"Hard to charge 50 bucks for 2 hours worth of gameplay, replayability be damned."

PapaStu you hit the nail on the coffin there. That is why I don't have many of the new games out now.

[Astrocade]

"Hard to charge 50 bucks for 2 hours worth of gameplay, replayability be damned."

PapaStu you hit the nail on the coffin there. That is why I don't have many of the new games out now.


This is one reason why cartridges and VHS was so expensive, even after the price of manufacturing dropped. One of the arguments put forth by the studios and developers was "Why pay 7.00 to see it once, when you can pay fifty dollars and see it forever, in the luxury and comfort of your own home?"

Well, it's thirty years later and that novelty has passed. How many people buy a movie or game brand new that they watch/play once a week for the rest of their lives? Maybe one out of 100 titles has that type of merit with the end user, but most people buy games and play them for the first few days or maybe even a week or two at best and then never touch them again?

I think to better ask the question "Do new games cost too much?", we have to weed out a couple of segments of the gaming community:

Believe it or not, I commonly hear "Games aren't expensive" the most from people that buy used games, budget titles, or wait for the games to hit forty dollars. In doing so, you're actively admitting that games are too expensive, otherwise why don't you just buy it when it comes out at full price? Next.

Of course, how many of us work for our own money and have to choose between gas, food and games? I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of us posting in this thread are uh, taken care of by their parents and don't even buy their own games. No offense to you, but you have no business weighing in on this subject unless you are fully self-sufficient and buy your own games. Next.

For the guys that bought one 60.00 game last year because you absolutely couldn't wait for it to possibly end up cheaper, but rarely (if ever) buy a 60.00 title, your input is not needed either as you vote with your wallet.

So, for the guys that regularly buy full priced, 60.00 games, with your own money, do you feel you're paying too much?

[Nature Boy]

Right, because pirated carts and devices to play "back-ups" off various discs and memory devices were not available for Nintendo based systems. Give me a break. If you really want to control piracy, there are other ways to do it besides creating custom formats.

Who said pirating carts wasn't possible? I certainly didn't, so you'll get no 'break' from me.

[Gameguy]

So, for the guys that regularly buy full priced, 60.00 games, with your own money, do you feel you're paying too much?
If you're only asking the people who regularly buy the games at full price, why bother asking at all? Obviously they feel it's worth it or they wouldn't be buying them. That's like asking, "Of the people who like McDonalds the best, who likes McDonalds the best?"

I don't buy games new if they're full price, I wait until they get very cheap. There are certain games I've bought once they got to $19.99, but I really wanted those games very badly. Usually I now limit myself to $5-$10 for games that are current gen(DS games). When the system was newer I had a higher limit, but not really anymore. I only buy games myself, I don't get games bought for me anymore.

The main reason people aren't willing to spend so much on games anymore is because there's a bigger selection available of used stuff. You can buy a full price current gen game, or you can buy older gen stuff for $5-$10 each. The games and systems that are available now used are still pretty good, there's plenty of people that would gladly play an NES, SNES, N64, Gamecube, Dreamcast, Genesis, PS1, PS2, Saturn, etc. The games are still pretty fun and plenty of younger people are looking for this stuff now. Back when the NES was new, what was the other stuff available? Atari 2600, Colecovision, Intellivision, etc. Those aren't that close to the NES, those other systems are still good but aren't anywhere near the same like the NES was.

[TonyTheTiger]

Whether or not game prices are too high is one thing. I'm sure there can be a healthy debate on that subject. But I don't think any reasonable person can conclude that game prices are not at least prohibitively expensive for the purposes of impulse buying. The moments when you just happen to be in a store and see a new game on the shelf you weren't planning to buy yet figured "what the hell" for one reason or another. I have a rather large collection of games yet I can count my full price impulse buys on one hand. Used impulse buys, however, are a different story.

Clearly people like used games. If they didn't then there wouldn't be such boisterous outrage over many of Gamestop's practices. Who cares if Gamestop puts stickers all over used games if you only buy new ones? Games might not be too expensive but they certainly aren't inexpensive. Even if you eliminate impulse buying from the equation, buying every game you want to play brand new will get very costly very fast if you want to play more than a few games each year. I don't know of anybody who isn't at least a little discriminatory with what games to buy at full price.

[Rob2600]

I commonly hear "Games aren't expensive" the most from people that buy used games, budget titles, or wait for the games to hit forty dollars. In doing so, you're actively admitting that games are too expensive, otherwise why don't you just buy it when it comes out at full price?

Exactly.

[Astrocade]

If you're only asking the people who regularly buy the games at full price, why bother asking at all? Obviously they feel it's worth it or they wouldn't be buying them. That's like asking, "Of the people who like McDonalds the best, who likes McDonalds the best?"



I ask this of the people that buy 60.00 games because most of us, as I've pointed out, feel that 60.00 is too steep for a new game and accordingly wait for a cheaper alternative.

The guys that actually PURCHASE 60.00 games are the ones I want to hear from. Do they buy them because they feel that the games are worth every penny, or that they're not expensive, or that they're buying them at full price to support the industry, or they have enough disposable income to buy it whether it was 60.00 or 160.00?

I'm just curious as to who the guys buying sixty dollar games are, as few of my friends and apparently few of the guys on this thread do so. For the ones that do, I want to know how they justify doing so. I really want to be proven wrong when I say that a great majority of 60.00 games are purchased by parents for their offspring. My theory is that the average adult gamer isn't going to plunk down 60.00 every week or two unless he's insanely well off.

[ProgrammingAce]

I think you have fundamentally overestimated the cost of replication, packaging and shipping. For most games produced in quantities over 20,000 units, it only costs about $3.00 each to get the discs pressed, the inserts and instructions printed and inserted, the cases sealed and the units shipped to distributors. At larger quantities, this can drop to below $2.00

It's closer to $10, actually... And that depends on a number of other factors.

[Rob2600]

My theory is that the average adult gamer isn't going to plunk down 60.00 every week or two unless he's insanely well off.

This brings up another question: how many people buy a new game every week or two? Is that normal or excessive?

[Sudo]

I ask this of the people that buy 60.00 games because most of us, as I've pointed out, feel that 60.00 is too steep for a new game and accordingly wait for a cheaper alternative.

The guys that actually PURCHASE 60.00 games are the ones I want to hear from. Do they buy them because they feel that the games are worth every penny, or that they're not expensive, or that they're buying them at full price to support the industry, or they have enough disposable income to buy it whether it was 60.00 or 160.00?

I'm just curious as to who the guys buying sixty dollar games are, as few of my friends and apparently few of the guys on this thread do so. For the ones that do, I want to know how they justify doing so. I really want to be proven wrong when I say that a great majority of 60.00 games are purchased by parents for their offspring. My theory is that the average adult gamer isn't going to plunk down 60.00 every week or two unless he's insanely well off.

I don't consider myself well off at all, and I buy two full-price games a month usually (3 this month), and I have a 3-game Gamefly subscription. Games have been $60 long before this generation, it's nothing new. Development costs keep going up, so I don't see it as very expensive at all for hours of entertainment. Gaming is my primary hobby, and I don't have any problems buying what I want.

[TonyTheTiger]

I ask this of the people that buy 60.00 games because most of us, as I've pointed out, feel that 60.00 is too steep for a new game and accordingly wait for a cheaper alternative.

The guys that actually PURCHASE 60.00 games are the ones I want to hear from. Do they buy them because they feel that the games are worth every penny, or that they're not expensive, or that they're buying them at full price to support the industry, or they have enough disposable income to buy it whether it was 60.00 or 160.00?

I'm just curious as to who the guys buying sixty dollar games are, as few of my friends and apparently few of the guys on this thread do so. For the ones that do, I want to know how they justify doing so. I really want to be proven wrong when I say that a great majority of 60.00 games are purchased by parents for their offspring. My theory is that the average adult gamer isn't going to plunk down 60.00 every week or two unless he's insanely well off.

I'll bite. This is assuming new game = $60. With $40, and even $50 to a point, I'm a bit more flexible.

I'll buy a game brand new under a few circumstances.

1) I absolutely have to freaking have it. A good example is Mass Effect. I wanted it enough and I'll want the sequel enough.

2) It's a game that I want and also involves competition. Something like Street Fighter IV. I want to buy it upon release because not only is it very good but also because I want to get into the game while it's relevant and the competition is hot.

3) I want it and I'm afraid I won't be able to find it later on. This is slightly irrational in the current climate of the industry but it's the result of me being burned before. I can think of more than a few instances where I wanted a game but didn't want it enough to justify paying full price. Yet, before I could blink, my only option became $80+ Ebay prices. Though I highly doubt this is going to come into play with $60 games. So far I've only done this with last gen games.

As you can tell, this doesn't amount to a very large number of games each year. #3 has never come into play with current game prices and the last time I bought a brand new game on a whim was Ar Tonelico back when it first came out. I randomly saw it on the shelf and remembered reading some good things about it in Game Informer and decided to give it a shot just because. And before that it was Disgaea for the exact same reason. Before that, Tales of Destiny II on the PSOne, ditto. I highly doubt I'll be doing that sort of thing now at $60 a pop.

[Ed Oscuro]

I'm sure there's people out there who've bought games at $60 and thought it was too much. Heck, I bought Bioshock a few months ago at $20 and definitely overpaid.

[Astrocade]

I don't consider myself well off at all, and I buy two full-price games a month usually (3 this month), and I have a 3-game Gamefly subscription. Games have been $60 long before this generation, it's nothing new. Development costs keep going up, so I don't see it as very expensive at all for hours of entertainment. Gaming is my primary hobby, and I don't have any problems buying what I want.


Good points, all well taken. But with your Gamefly account, I'd whether to bet that you often buy games for less than full price, correct? I also remember you saying you only paid $38 for SF IV CE, which is less than half of the 80.00 asking price.

That's what troubles me about your post. You claim it's not expensive at all for all the hours of enjoyment you get out of it, but if you find a deal you know as well as I do that you're not going to pay full price for it. I'm sure you do regularly buy full priced games, but your buying (and renting) preferences show that 60.00 isn't expensive, unless there's a cheaper alternative.

(And seriously, I'm not singling you out or anything. I've just yet to hear someone that says that games aren't expensive actually paying full price 100% of the time.)

[TonyTheTiger]

To be fair to him, though, I don't think anybody is unwilling to take advantage of a deal. Paying full price for a game because you don't think it's too expensive is one thing. Paying full price for a game despite having a discount dropped into your lap, however, is just insane.

[Sudo]

Good points, all well taken. But with your Gamefly account, I'd whether to bet that you often buy games for less than full price, correct? I also remember you saying you only paid $38 for SF IV CE, which is less than half of the 80.00 asking price.

That's what troubles me about your post. You claim it's not expensive at all for all the hours of enjoyment you get out of it, but if you find a deal you know as well as I do that you're not going to pay full price for it. I'm sure you do regularly buy full priced games, but your buying (and renting) preferences show that 60.00 isn't expensive, unless there's a cheaper alternative.

(And seriously, I'm not singling you out or anything. I've just yet to hear someone that says that games aren't expensive actually paying full price 100% of the time.)

I actually do pay full price for games a lot of the time. I'm pretty damn impatient, and don't want to wait for Gamefly to send the game to me sometimes (case in point, I'm buying Star Ocean 4 at Gamestop tomorrow). I also have an import copy of Demon's Souls for the PS3 shipping tomorrow, which I paid $70 for since it most likely isn't going to be released here. For developers that I'm a really big fan of, I tend to buy their games new opposed to keeping them from Gamefly. As far as SF IV goes, I still have it at home and will most likely pay to keep it eventually, but I'm holding onto it for now.

[Zap!]

Good points, all well taken. But with your Gamefly account, I'd whether to bet that you often buy games for less than full price, correct? I also remember you saying you only paid $38 for SF IV CE, which is less than half of the 80.00 asking price.

That's what troubles me about your post. You claim it's not expensive at all for all the hours of enjoyment you get out of it, but if you find a deal you know as well as I do that you're not going to pay full price for it. I'm sure you do regularly buy full priced games, but your buying (and renting) preferences show that 60.00 isn't expensive, unless there's a cheaper alternative.

(And seriously, I'm not singling you out or anything. I've just yet to hear someone that says that games aren't expensive actually paying full price 100% of the time.)

I can't speak for him, but as for myself, I'll buy an expensive game if I really want it. Like Resident Evil 5 (not sure what it'll cost yet, but let's say it's $60). I'll gladly buy it for $60, but if I could get it for cheaper, I'll drive that extra mile or go out of my way a bit. But I don't buy many new games. I will get MLB '09: The Show on March 3rd and RE5 10 days or so later, but only when it's a must-have game.

[Zap!]

Well, I'm almost 30 and I made nearly $30,000 last year.

Keep in mind that I don't have any debts, bills are on the low side (I don't consume much) and I don't buy much either...and I STILL think games today are expensive.

Of course, that's me...I've always been super cheap when it comes to money. Heck, I complain about spending $1 buying lunch! :D

I have a question, though. What if, in the future, all games will be in digital format (for example, all games will be available for download ONLY). No more physical media exists. Yet the game still costs $60 to purchase. Is this still acceptable, at least regarding price?

I'm not gonna lie, I wish games were $10 or even free. That would be awesome, I'd save money and get myself a better car. I'm just saying $60 isn't too bad. After all, I found a way to get $200 Neo-Geo games when I was 18, broke and jobless in the early 90's. :)

I am anti-digital media gaming. I need a box to hold and display. For those who want it, they should be far cheaper.

[Zap!]

This brings up another question: how many people buy a new game every week or two? Is that normal or excessive?

I think it's excessive, even though there was a time when I got four games a month from 1987-1991. But I didn't exactly buy them.

[Zap!]

To be fair to him, though, I don't think anybody is unwilling to take advantage of a deal. Paying full price for a game because you don't think it's too expensive is one thing. Paying full price for a game despite having a discount dropped into your lap, however, is just insane.

Yeah, even if you make $500,000 a year, if you have a discount card you will use it.

[Sudo]

I'm not gonna lie, I wish games were $10 or even free. That would be awesome, I'd save money and get myself a better car. I'm just saying $60 isn't too bad. After all, I found a way to get $200 Neo-Geo games when I was 18, broke and jobless in the early 90's. :)

I am anti-digital media gaming. I need a box to hold and display. For those who want it, they should be far cheaper.

I agree completely. I buy the occasional PSN and XBLA title, but that's only because there's no other option. I imported the Asian version of Siren for PS3 since I refused to download it on PSN when there was an English Blu-ray version available.

[Nature Boy]

This brings up another question: how many people buy a new game every week or two? Is that normal or excessive?

Without being able to cite actual statistics, I'm comfortable saying that the average gamer buys at a pace that is far less than the 26-52 games per year quoted above.

I wouldn't call it excessive though - that would depend on the gamer in question (disposable income, free time, etc.)

[Flippy8490]

I definately buy a lot less games with the high game prices. I hardly EVER (unless its a must have) buy brand new games when they come out. I wait a year or so for the price to drop to the 30-40$ range. Even the increase from 50-60$ discourages me from buying.

[Zap!]

You wanna know what costs too much? Not games, but the PS3 Duelshock 3 controller. $54.99 is so insane, I only have one. And the PS3 Wireless Keypad is even worse. It just clips onto your controller and is $50+. It should not be more than $25.

[TonyTheTiger]

I think we can all agree that accessories have gotten absurd. No way that friggin' nunchaku should be $20.

[Zap!]

I think we can all agree that accessories have gotten absurd. No way that friggin' nunchaku should be $20.

Ya know, the $20 for the Nunchucks never bothered me. However, the $40 for the Wiimote is madness. $60 (together) for one controller. Having to buy it seperately also is not smart.

[otoko]

Ya know, the $20 for the Nunchucks never bothered me. However, the $40 for the Wiimote is madness. $60 (together) for one controller. Having to but it seperately also is not smart.

Agree.. It's the reason why I have not gotten a second controller for my Wii.. I've owned mine since launch... Also on the subject the last time I bought a new game at full price was Super Mario Galaxy.. about a month since launch.. I heard from some people on this site that they had almost 600$ a month habits.. Well there's no way in hell I could ever afford that.. At college I make a grand total of (if I'm lucky) 250$ some odd a month and at home I will usually make (also if I'm lucky) 400$. I really do not have the cash to go spending on new games. I'm usually buying my games used from my local goodwill and I estimate approimately 40% of my collection actually came from there.

Well, I have friends who own xbox 360s and they do buy games straight up from launch... but I've asked them how they are able to afford the 60$ price and most of them tell me they will trade many titles back. Now I don't have the resources for that...

/ramble

[robotriot]

I saw Little Big Planet and Motorstorm: Pacific Rift today for €71,95 at a store today. These prices are ridiculous :/

[PapaStu]

You wanna know what costs too much? Not games, but the PS3 Duelshock 3 controller. $54.99 is so insane, I only have one. And the PS3 Wireless Keypad is even worse. It just clips onto your controller and is $50+. It should not be more than $25.


Ya know, the $20 for the Nunchucks never bothered me. However, the $40 for the Wiimote is madness. $60 (together) for one controller. Having to buy it seperately also is not smart.


A quick glance gives me these standard non-sale prices for todays modern console controllers
360 Wireless = 50, buy a rechargeable battery +11 = 61
Wiimote = 40 add a nunchuck +20 = 60
PS3 Dualshock = 55

Accessories is where they make their biggest profit margins. First party stuff never drops in price for a reason. Even if the console is making $$ per unit sold.