Do Video Games Cost Too Much? [Slashdot]

[DP ServBot]

Valve's Gabe Newell gave the keynote address at this year's Design, Innovate, Communicate, Entertain (DICE) Summit about the cost of games, the effect of piracy, and how to reach new players. Valve undertook an experiment recently to test how price affected the sales of their popular survival-horror FPS, Left 4 Dead. They Reduced the price by 50% on Steam, which "resulted in a 3000% increase in sales of the game, posting overall sales that beat the title's original launch performance." They also tested various other price drops over the holidays, seeing spikes in sales that corresponded well to the size of the discount. This will undoubtedly add to the speculation that game prices have risen too high for the current economic climate. G4TV ran a live blog of Newell's presentation, providing a few more details.http://games.slashdot.org/slashdot-it.pl?from=rss&op=image&style=h0&sid=09/02/20/0750203 (http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/20/0750203&from=rss)
Read more of this story (http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/20/0750203&from=rss) at Slashdot.
http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~at/4dNFe2e0ZPnQLc6iP2NcxUH0Ud0/i</img> (http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~at/4dNFe2e0ZPnQLc6iP2NcxUH0Ud0/a)
http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~r/Slashdot/slashdotGames/~4/oPai98ymyuw

More... (http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdotGames/~3/oPai98ymyuw/article.pl)

[Oobgarm]

Given the current 'economic climate', I think they are, but that's just because money goes elsewhere and not so much to entertainment.

I do honestly think that companies should release new IPs at $40. If EA had done that with both Dead Space and Mirror's Edge, they'd have sold a ton more copies than they did. You gotta figure that the difference will be made up in the fact that they're going to sell more copies. I mean, you're going to have those who are always going to wait for the drop to $20, but a lower initial cost might spur on some of those fence-sitters. Only reason I personally got either of those games is because I got them for $40 each.

All things considered, scale things back by even just $10 for a while and I think companies will see higher sales. It's amazing what a difference a small amount makes.

[JunkTheMagicDragon]

this is why gamestop does gangbusters on their used game sales. price, price price.

i can buy a new 360 game for $60, or i can buy two or three used ones for the same price. not a hard decision to make, unless you're talking about an absolute must-have new release.

i would def buy more new games if the initial cost was lower. i remember some cd stores around here used to sell new release cds for cheap (around 10 or 15 bucks) for the first couple of days to drive sales, then after that the price would go back to retail. if i was on the verge with an album, the cheap price would usually make me go for it. for aaa titles, the publishers would be shooting themselves in the foot, but like oobgarm said, something similar for new ips or niche titles would be a good sales booster.

on second thought though, i wonder how well this kind of thing would work in a brick-n-mortar. valve has so little overhead on steam, they can afford to do a drastic sale. cutting the price on physical releases (whose price includes distribution costs and the retailer's cut) would drive margins down for everyone. sales would increase, but would it be enough to offset those losses?

[Jorpho]

With so many unplayed games sitting around, the thought of spending more than $20 on a single new game these days makes me downright queasy.

They also tested various other price drops over the holidays, seeing spikes in sales that corresponded well to the size of the discount.Heh. Who wouldn't buy Bioshock for five freaking bucks?

this is why gamestop does gangbusters on their used game sales. price, price price.Except Gamestop's (or at least EB's) used game prices aren't much of deal compared to retail, or even other sources of used games.

[Clownzilla]

My price point for a game is $20 and $200 for a system($100 for a handheld). I don't care if it's new, used, clearance as long as I pay no more than $20 for all of those 1's and 0's on a disc. I understand the advanced technology in games and game systems but in the end it's just a form of entertainment. Games are fighting with TV, dining out, movies, board games, books, etc. and in my world $50 to $70 is a complete ripoff for a video game. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE games but I will only pay a reasonable amount for them.

[chrisbid]

publishers can basically charge whatever they want. the physical cost of production is very low. all of the costs of a game are in development and (for third parties) licensing. Sony and Microsoft have to keep the licensing fees high to make up for the losses sustained with hardware sales.

i agree that game prices are too high, but the bigger problem is expensive hardware.

[j_factor]

Games do cost too much. I remember paying $40 for new games in the Playstation days. There is no reason a game should be $60 by itself. It's not like we've gone back to cartridges.

[eugenek]

Yeah, you'd think they'd be smart enough to figure that halving your profit margin but selling three times as many copies = more revenue. Does anyone remember when the 2K franchise went to $19.99 for newly released games? I hope that made money for them, it's the only time I've bought all of a single year's sports games. Too bad EA had to screw them over on the NFL license. Fuck EA.

[backguard]

The thing with lowering the release price on a game is that you don't want to get lumped into the euphemistic category of a "value title". Lots of consumers equate quality with price and they may view a $40 dollar new release as worse than a $60 game just based on the pricetag. Stupid yes, but it is normal consumer behavior.

[Clownzilla]

publishers can basically charge whatever they want. the physical cost of production is very low. all of the costs of a game are in development and (for third parties) licensing. Sony and Microsoft have to keep the licensing fees high to make up for the losses sustained with hardware sales.

i agree that game prices are too high, but the bigger problem is expensive hardware.

No matter how it's sliced, the market can't sustain these prices. The consumer does not think about the licensing, development costs, royalties, etc. when they look for games. All the consumer thinks about is "I can't afford this so I won't buy it". It's funny how companies like Sony keep hammering home that $500 is a good deal because it will play Blue Ray movies and games when most consumers will not buy a $500 game system no matter what it does. Sure, I also would love to deck my house out with solar panels and geothermal heating because it just makes sense.............except for my pocketbook.

[bangtango]

Games appear to be less expensive now than they were in the cartridge days. Plus I remember there being far fewer price drops back in the 8-bit and 16-bit era compared to today.

There were a lot of 8-bit and 16-bit games which seemed to be priced at the $40-60 mark long (years) after they had been released and this is something you don't see today. Now a game might be out less than 6 months and get a price drop or two.

Never in the cartridge days did you see new releases come out at $10-20, which is far more common now (and has been since the days of the PS1). Granted that is because you couldn't really do that type of thing in the cartridge days. However, the point I am making is things are better now than they used to be.

[Wolfrider31]

Games appear to be less expensive now than they were in the cartridge days. Plus I remember there being far fewer price drops back in the 8-bit and 16-bit era compared to today.

There were a lot of 8-bit and 16-bit games which seemed to be priced at the $40-60 mark long (years) after they had been released and this is something you don't see today. Now a game might be out less than 6 months and get a price drop or two.

Never in the cartridge days did you see new releases come out at $10-20, which is far more common now (and has been since the days of the PS1). Granted that is because you couldn't really do that type of thing in the cartridge days. However, the point I am making is things are better now than they used to be.

THANK YOU.

I DESPISE the "Games are too expensive" comment. It's filled with ignorance about the basic economics of game development. When you're talking about a large studio like EA or Ubisoft or SquareEnix the cost of a game comes from all sorts of places and few of it are actual development costs. Yes you have license or create game engines, and yes you have to pay for the right to release your game on a particular console (the fees of which usually make up about 10 dollars out of the game price). THEN you have to pay to have the game rated by ESRB (which is highway robbery frankly) otherwise your game won't be allowed on the console you just paid to have your game on. Then once the game is finished you have to pay to submit it to first party (which checks your game for compliance bugs). If you fail the submission you need to pay AGAIN to resubmit.

Oh by the way, you also have to PAY your employees which on a large scale AAA project can number in the hundreds. Most of your employees with technical jobs (programming/networking) are making between 60-80k a year (and won't work for less). Your artists, designers and writers are hitting the 50-60k a year. And lots not forgot your 30-40 member strong QA team (which make about 30 grand a year).

But we're not done yet folks! You have marketing and business managers to pay, production costs if your games a physical release, and lets not forget server and maintenance costs for the game once its released if it has an online mode (which gamers seem to DEMAND).

And factoring all that in, you better hope you break the one million mark because otherwise you're knee-deep in the red and that's where most companies find most of their products. Less than 20% of video games passed through to retailers produce a profit and those games are left to hold the slack of the games that didn't do well.

And I hear you say, "Well just make good games and then we'll buy them." But see, gamers don't. Ever. Zack and Wiki? Ico? On the one hand companies are attacked for releasing tried and true franchises but those are the only ones that sell well. Need For Speed? You know the last one (the one everyone HATED) sold over four million copies? No, game companies can't release new IP at 40 dollars because new IP is a sure fire failure and knocking 20 dollars off the price will kill most companies.

Gamers have a choice: Either buy good games at 60 dollars and encourage new IP by making it successful (and quit buying used or waiting for the game to drop in price) or stop whining about the economics of industry. If you can't afford to buy a game for more than 50 dollars then, well too bad, game companies can't afford to make them.

[hellfire]

some games are waaaay overpriced some are underpriced

[kaedesdisciple]

Even in terms of dollars, $50 for a video game 20 years ago while the NES was still king of the hill is a hell of a lot more than even $60 for one PS3/360 game now. Yet, people still found the money then as they do now. If anything, games are cheaper now just looking at the CPI over the last 20 years.

[j_factor]

Games appear to be less expensive now than they were in the cartridge days. Plus I remember there being far fewer price drops back in the 8-bit and 16-bit era compared to today.

There were a lot of 8-bit and 16-bit games which seemed to be priced at the $40-60 mark long (years) after they had been released and this is something you don't see today. Now a game might be out less than 6 months and get a price drop or two.

Never in the cartridge days did you see new releases come out at $10-20, which is far more common now (and has been since the days of the PS1). Granted that is because you couldn't really do that type of thing in the cartridge days. However, the point I am making is things are better now than they used to be.

Games now are less expensive compared to the cartridge days, but you're skipping a large period of time for comparison. Ten years ago, games were cheaper. Hell, games were cheaper in the "cartridge days" too when they weren't on cartridges. Sega CD and Amiga games were cheaper than today's games. Why are we paying cartridge prices for games on disc? And I almost never see anything under $30 anymore (and that price point is generally reserved for the Wii), unless you're talking about downloads? At one point we regularly had $20 budget games on disc, and even some $10 releases came out on Playstation (The Italian Job, for example).

Inflation isn't a good comparison because the price of media is usually outpaced by inflation. Movies, music, and so on don't cost much more than they did 15-20 years ago.

[Diatribal Deity]

Expensive relative to what?

Meaning if you go out to see a movie = $4-7 /hour
Buy a $50-60 game and say conservatively get at least 10 hours min playtime = $5-6 /hour
(not even factoring in the ability to resell/trade and so on to recoup some cost)

This is a very simple comparison coming from someone who does not buy new games often anymore at $50-60 but can justify the cost from a little bit different angle.

Yeah I'm leaving out the social aspect and such of going and getting out of the house, going on a date, escaping the kids, etc... but I think this point is a valid one.

[MeTmKnice]

IMO, Video Games and Movies (theater and discs) are both over priced. I rarely go to the theater, as I see it as a waste of money.. aside from that all of the god-aweful horrible and stupid movies/sequels they come out with. All because a majority of the world goes to see the damn movie. Most movie makers do not even seem to care about the quality of their movies, but how much money they make. Thus, continuing a vicous cycle of BS.

[Astrocade]

What people that like to compare movies and video games are seemingly missing is that they're two different mediums. Same with CDs and music.

The average movie costs upwards of thirty-forty million to make (studio movie). This initial budget is usually recouped at the box office- DVD and post theatrical sales are usually pure profit. The studios rely on DVD and Blu-Ray sales to achieve profit.

Videogames cost an average of 4.5 million to make. This is usually recouped the first week of sales. All sales after release week tend to be pure profit.

Videogames don't have the equivalent of the box office to break even, it's purely a sales driven market. Thereby- the more a game costs to make the more it has to sell in order to not bomb.

The problem is- what about all the majority of games that cost around three or four million to make? The 60.00 price tag tends to make them exorbitant profit makers. The twenty million dollar games are in the minority (for now) but the 60.00 price tag is neccesary in order for that title to be profitable.

What hurts us as buyers of the games is that most moderately budgeted titles are not worth the 60.00 asking price. That's not to speak of the quality of the games, it's just that nagging feeling you get after finishing a game in two or three days that makes you wonder if the game was worthy of the cash you just shelled out.

The "fair" thing would be to price the games accordingly. We have "budget" games that get released cheaper than average, but "budget" tends to equal "crap" in the eyes of consumers. The thing is, the average price of games is too high. We can, as an industry, drop the asking price down to forty dollars (or even thirty) and still turn a good profit. But you- as the consumer- will still shell out 60.00 for the hot new title, so we probably won't do that. What hurts is the budget games and unknown properties that won't get purchased because the price is too high. Some are indeed very good- but the consumer is much less likely to take a chance on that mystery title while they have Final Fantasy or Halo sitting next to it.

Games could stand to be cheaper, but if you look at the big picture, games are MUCH cheaper now than they ever were. The average Atari title in 1979 was fifty dollars new. Adjusted for inflation, games today should cost around 150.00.

[ProgrammingAce]

The thing is, if the market for $60 games falls out, development costs aren't going to fall. A lot of developers will no longer be able to afforde to make games and there will be less games on the market.

At $60 a game, a lot of titles still never break even. It's impossible to predict sales at various price points. It works great for steam, but steam gets to hammer all of their users to show the drop. In the retail market what are they going to do, pay more in marketing to show that they've lowered the price on their game? Good luck balencing a cheaper game with higher marketing and trying to get the right balance before you go out of business.

[Cryomancer]

I think games cost too much to make. The should maybe start thinking about making games that aren't all supercomplex "theatrical experiences" and start giving us fun again.

[The 1 2 P]

The reason I seldom buy new games at release is because the $60 price point is way too much for me. I understand why publishers have to do it but the economy isn't currently built to sustain that price point. Obviously some companies are doing better than others. I remember during the PS1 days that you could actually get new release games for free by trading in three or four used games at EB. I miss those days. But as long as two new release games total $120 then I won't be buying many new releases.

[otoko]

Indeed. I usually buy stuff that makes it in the bargain bin. So 20-30$ is my price range. Rarely I will purchase anything above that.

[eskobar]

Quite honestly, i think that video games are overpriced.

The main reason of this is that companies still have the pricing model of cartridges. I know that many carts were sold for $70 or $80 dollars in the 90's.

The royalty fees and development costs are unnecessary high, today`s games require more technical resources but we have much more advanced ways of processing those requirements.

Just look a the price of the last generations of PS2's RPGs; they are priced very fair and it shows in the sales numbers; companies know that, but they know that the industry can lost too much confidence if there is a massive drop on prices, the stock market comes first .... then comes Greatest Hits, hehehe

[Rob2600]

I've written this before, but quite a few good Wii games have debuted for $20 to $30. I know the production values in games like Mercury Meltdown Revolution, Geometry Wars: Galaxies, or Pinball Hall of Fame: The Williams Collection aren't as high as they are in games like Metal Gear Solid 4 or BioShock, but they're still great, fun games.

I remember some PS2 games like Mr. Mosquito debuted for $20, too...another good, fun, no-frills game.

At this point in my life, I'd rather spend $60 and get two brand new games that are good, old fashioned, no-frills, arcade-style fun, instead of spending $60 and only getting one brand new game where I have to sit through six hours of FMV.

[j_factor]

What people that like to compare movies and video games are seemingly missing is that they're two different mediums. Same with CDs and music.

The average movie costs upwards of thirty-forty million to make (studio movie). This initial budget is usually recouped at the box office- DVD and post theatrical sales are usually pure profit. The studios rely on DVD and Blu-Ray sales to achieve profit.

Videogames cost an average of 4.5 million to make. This is usually recouped the first week of sales. All sales after release week tend to be pure profit.

Videogames don't have the equivalent of the box office to break even, it's purely a sales driven market. Thereby- the more a game costs to make the more it has to sell in order to not bomb.

Arcades were (are?) the videogame equivalent of the box office. I think it would be ideal if we could somehow bring back the arcade industry to what it once was... Although I have no idea how that would be accomplished.


The problem is- what about all the majority of games that cost around three or four million to make? The 60.00 price tag tends to make them exorbitant profit makers. The twenty million dollar games are in the minority (for now) but the 60.00 price tag is neccesary in order for that title to be profitable.

What hurts us as buyers of the games is that most moderately budgeted titles are not worth the 60.00 asking price. That's not to speak of the quality of the games, it's just that nagging feeling you get after finishing a game in two or three days that makes you wonder if the game was worthy of the cash you just shelled out.

The "fair" thing would be to price the games accordingly. We have "budget" games that get released cheaper than average, but "budget" tends to equal "crap" in the eyes of consumers. The thing is, the average price of games is too high. We can, as an industry, drop the asking price down to forty dollars (or even thirty) and still turn a good profit. But you- as the consumer- will still shell out 60.00 for the hot new title, so we probably won't do that. What hurts is the budget games and unknown properties that won't get purchased because the price is too high. Some are indeed very good- but the consumer is much less likely to take a chance on that mystery title while they have Final Fantasy or Halo sitting next to it.

I think you're overstating the consumer stigma of budget games. NFL 2K5 was a budget game and it sold like hotcakes. Katamari Damacy was a budget game, and I bet it did much better than it would have otherwise.

It would be nice if games were simply priced based on the budget. Except, that wouldn't work too well in an accounting sense -- it would have to be balanced against expected sales. But then some would argue that too much price variation would confuse or alienate the consumer. There's no clear solution to make pricing perfectly equitable. But I'm not satisfied with the status quo.

Think of any game that rapidly dropped in price. I'll say Condemned 2 for example. It was full-price on release, but the price dropped after just a few months. Now it goes for, what, $20? And it's not even a year old. Wouldn't Condemned 2 have been better off just debuting at a lower price point, say $40?

[p_b]

snip

I really would like to know where you get your numbers from. All I know that quite a few studios are closing down at the moment. Why would they do that if they're money-raking millionaires?

[Skelix]

I had shrinkwrapped someplace, one of the Apple II Origin games, it was Ultima IV I think (could have been V or maybe it was Moebius)...

Regardless, price tag was $60. Games have always been expensive, just the way it is.

You can wait for sales, used prices or even video game crashes. I vaguely remember Atari 2600 games from $1-5 at various stores.

Support the community is what I say, I bought both L4D and Deep Space new full price and wasn't let down. But then again I have bought a lot of shit games at full price too.

One thing I'm not supporting anymore though is PC gaming, I think I'm done with that. If I was to buy PC I hate to say it but it would be Steam. As much as I don't like the whole online validation whatever krap, I don't like all the installation of all the extra DRM you get from all the disc titles.

[Astrocade]

I really would like to know where you get your numbers from.

Google was my friend.



All I know that quite a few studios are closing down at the moment. Why would they do that if they're money-raking millionaires?

Are you serious?

Ok. Let me re-phrase that. Why does any business shut down, even when the economy is tight and they're in an industry that makes billions of dollars a year? There's a hundred different reasons why out of the thousands of game developers around, hundreds shut down year after year.

If you bring your "A" game and release successful titles, the only way you go under is due to mismanagement. If you make good games, but don't have a hit or a bestseller, well- you go under. If you make shitty games but people still buy them- well, that doesn't last very long in this industry. But my point is the Videogaming industry as a whole is one of the most profitable industries around. But with all profitable industries, you're going to have your companies that fold, regardless of how much money his neighbors rake in.

I think it was Matt Zane that said "Fuck Rock N Roll- the only two sure bets that you'll make money in America are porn and video games". The only two times in gaming history where it looked as though gaming would be on the verge of biting the dust was the great crash of '83 and the "small crash" of the mid nineties. Games rake in way more loot now than they did during the 83 crash, which is why the small crash of the mid-nineties was only a small crash. Gaming has very nearly reached a sustainable peak that shows the pundits that no matter how tough the economy is, people are still gaming and they're still going to buy games. The only question is, will people still buy games at 60.00? And with the recent industry leanings that indicate that the majors are at least kicking around the idea of lowering game prices, I think the answer is "probably not for long."

[Nature Boy]

Gamers have a choice: Either buy good games at 60 dollars and encourage new IP by making it successful (and quit buying used or waiting for the game to drop in price) or stop whining about the economics of industry.

It's never an 'either or' choice.

I'll continue to buy what I want, when I want, and for the price I want. Doing anything else is crazy.

[Zap!]

My price point for a game is $20 and $200 for a system($100 for a handheld). I don't care if it's new, used, clearance as long as I pay no more than $20 for all of those 1's and 0's on a disc. I understand the advanced technology in games and game systems but in the end it's just a form of entertainment. Games are fighting with TV, dining out, movies, board games, books, etc. and in my world $50 to $70 is a complete ripoff for a video game. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE games but I will only pay a reasonable amount for them.

But $50 to $70 is cheaper than when we paid $40 for games in 1982, inflation-wise.

[Gameguy]

But $50 to $70 is cheaper than when we paid $40 for games in 1982, inflation-wise.
Has everybody's income also increased at the same rate, inflation-wise?

[Icarus Moonsight]

This may be just a regional anomaly, but it is my experience and personal experience goes a long way to shape ones opinions and biases. Anyway, back in the 90's in the Minnesota Twin City area I remember retail prices being terribly high and not just on N64 carts... For many titles, if you didn't catch them at release for MSRP then you were stuck with TRU's premium pricing scale, and anything RPG at TRU up there was 80-100 bucks. Despite the titles MSRP. Dragon Warrior 2, 3 and 4? 70-100 bucks. Phantasy Star for SMS or Phantasy Star II, III or IV? 100 bucks. Panzer Dragoon Saga, Rayearth, House of the Dead or Shining Force 3 for Saturn? 80-100... The release of FFVII seemed to be a big help in normalizing the prices in the region. They seemed to settle down a year or so after. Back then, it irritated me, but I didn't bitch about it. I waited for the clearence sales. Unfortunately, a few of them I listed dried up before the price could get cut down to a reasonable level.

[BydoEmpire]

The average Atari title in 1979 was fifty dollars new. Adjusted for inflation, games today should cost around 150.00.That's just not true (in the States). Most Atari games were $20-$40. Even the NES launch titles were $30 - it wasn't until later that they crept up to $50. Only a few cart games went beyond $50 (SNES RPGs, *some* N64 titles, etc) in the 16-bit era.

I've had my 360 for almost two years and haven't bought a single full-priced retail game. I also just joined GameFly a month ago, and that's been great. Even though I think games are a good value for the money, I have a hard time justifying $50 or $60 for a game these days when there are so many other options.

[carlcarlson]

Even though I think games are a good value for the money, I have a hard time justifying $50 or $60 for a game these days when there are so many other options.

That's how I see it. I think many times the price is completely justifiable, but I still don't buy games new because I know I can easily get them for half price or so in a couple weeks.

[bangtango]

Games now are less expensive compared to the cartridge days, but you're skipping a large period of time for comparison. Ten years ago, games were cheaper. Hell, games were cheaper in the "cartridge days" too when they weren't on cartridges. Sega CD and Amiga games were cheaper than today's games. Why are we paying cartridge prices for games on disc? And I almost never see anything under $30 anymore (and that price point is generally reserved for the Wii), unless you're talking about downloads? At one point we regularly had $20 budget games on disc, and even some $10 releases came out on Playstation (The Italian Job, for example).

Inflation isn't a good comparison because the price of media is usually outpaced by inflation. Movies, music, and so on don't cost much more than they did 15-20 years ago.

I didn't skip anything from 10 years ago. My original answer referenced both "$10 games" and the original Playstation. Nor did I ever use the word inflation.

I don't see what the Sega CD or the price of its games has to do with this discussion. Sega's business model during the days of the Sega CD and following it should hardly be a blueprint for any console manufacturer, first party publisher or third party publisher to follow today. Unless their respective executives want a roadmap of what NOT to do.

Besides the Sega CD was riddled with FMV junk and half-baked Genesis ports with little more than enhanced music, most of which (the Genesis ports) came out pretty damn late compared to the Genesis counterpart. Like Mortal Kombat or NBA Jam. None of that stuff was worth $50.

Nobody in their right mind would have the balls to charge $50-60 upon release for the Sega CD versions of Mortal Kombat and NBA Jam when they missed the SNES/Genesis versions by MONTHS and when half the damn country already owned the SNES/Genesis versions. Of course they were going to be cheaper than cartridge games OR any A-list games coming out last year or this year.

So the fact stuff on Sega CD was cheaper than anything on 360 or PS3 today just doesn't matter to me.



But then some would argue that too much price variation would confuse or alienate the consumer.

It is a good argument. You wouldn't find it confusing if (hypothetically) Capcom dropped Street Fighter 4 in January at $20 on release, a new Mega Man sequel at $30 in March, a new Bionic Commando game at $40 in May, an all new Resident Evil sequel at $50 in August and a new sequel Dead Rising at $60 on release in November?

Plenty of Dead Rising and Resident Evil fans would be pissed off and I don't see any logical way you could explain it to them.

[Gameguy]

I just remembered back when Final Fantasy V was released for the Gameboy Advance. It was $39.99 in most places when it was released, except at Wal-mart where it was priced at $16.88(it was $16.XX for sure)for a sale. The sale was for the week that it was released, and I remember a bunch of people took advantage of the sale. I'm not sure why it was priced that low, but it was very good for a newly released game.

[stonecutter]

I have noticed that here in Canada Street Fighter IV is 69.99 - wow. I am sort of interested in the game, but when I seen that I flat out refuse.

[Astrocade]

That's just not true (in the States). Most Atari games were $20-$40. Even the NES launch titles were $30 - it wasn't until later that they crept up to $50. Only a few cart games went beyond $50 (SNES RPGs, *some* N64 titles, etc) in the 16-bit era.

I've had my 360 for almost two years and haven't bought a single full-priced retail game. I also just joined GameFly a month ago, and that's been great. Even though I think games are a good value for the money, I have a hard time justifying $50 or $60 for a game these days when there are so many other options.

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. (Also keep in mind that this was 1982- one year before the spectacular crash that completely obliterated gaming. Hell, you could find cartridges going for a dollar or two in some places). That was due to a lot of things- all the sudden the software was cheaper to produce and there was increased competition from a lot of different console makers.

But like I said, in 1979 when Atari was the big kid on the block, the cartridges ran 49.99. If my camera was up and running, I could show you the K-Mart price tags on my boxed games.

Also, if the NES launch titles were 30.00 at launch, they didn't remain that way. My parents payed 39.99 for Excitebike in 1989.

[badinsults]

I was at EB Games last week, and saw Fallout 3 for $70 and scoffed. But then, I remembered how 13 years ago, I paid $110 for Turok: Dinosaur Hunter, and saw Chrono Trigger for $95. Doom 64 was $140. Back in 1993, I bought Final Fantasy II for $75. No, games don't cost so much these days, if you look at it compared to the cartridge era.

[makaar]

I'd say I'd buy a lot more games brand new if they were still 40-50 at release. Strangely I find myself buying into limited edition bundles more though, and spending upwards of 120...

Back in the cartridge days I never paid more than $50 for anything...so I pay more these days for sure...then again for a while my parents bought my games for me when the NES/Genesis came out...

[Zap!]

Has everybody's income also increased at the same rate, inflation-wise?

Yes. The minimum wage back in 1982 was a scant $3.35/hr. I really don't get inflation. Since prices AND wages both go up together, why doesn't everything just stay the same?

[Zap!]

I have noticed that here in Canada Street Fighter IV is 69.99 - wow. I am sort of interested in the game, but when I seen that I flat out refuse.

Apparently, you don't remember how much Street Fighter II was for the SNES in 1992.

[Ed Oscuro]

Valve's Gabe Newell gave the keynote address at this year's Design, Innovate, Communicate, Entertain (DICE) Summit about the cost of games, the effect of piracy, and how to reach new players. Valve undertook an experiment recently to test how price affected the sales of their popular survival-horror FPS, Left 4 Dead. They Reduced the price by 50% on Steam, which "resulted in a 3000% increase in sales of the game, posting overall sales that beat the title's original launch performance."
The strange thing about this is that I hadn't bought a new game at full retail for well over a year before L4D. I paid full retail for that one, however.

Haven't played it in a while now. Still waiting on that new content.

[BHvrd]

To me it's all about the features a game offers. If it's a single player game I usually won't pay over $30 for it, period. I look at it as "I can just play that later". If it's a new game with online/offline/co-op/splitscreen/great single player I almost always will buy it at the full $60 retail.

If they started focusing on more options then it would justify at least "my" purchase. I can't count the number of times i've said (Damn, I wish GTA IV was splitscreen).

I would vote for more options versus less price and I think current prices can and should cover all those bases.

[boatofcar]

Apparently, you don't remember how much Street Fighter II was for the SNES in 1992.

I don't understand your argument. Sure, I remember how much SF2 was when it came out for the SNES. Why should have anything to do with being put off at the price SF4 is?

I will never, ever, ever pay $60 for a new retail game again. I paid close to $100 for FFIII and Chrono Trigger back in the day, but that's when all I ever did was play video games, so it was money well spent.

If you want to pay an extra $20 to "support the industry" instead of waiting 2 or 3 months for a $40 price drop, that's great, but to me it's just throwing your money away. After all, what's the worst that could happen? Studios stop spending so much money producing games I'm not interested in playing anyway? Boo freaking hoo. Maybe they'll decide to spend more time on games that are fun instead of pushing the graphics in cutscenes faster towards the uncanny valley.

[Ed Oscuro]

Do prototypes cost too much?

At least the new-games industry doesn't control pricing and/or have a limited number of products being chased by a large pool of enthusiasts.

Speaking of SF2, there's an interesting comparison: George H.W. Bush's economy of 1992 vs. today's.

[crazyjackcsa]

I don't understand your argument. Sure, I remember how much SF2 was when it came out for the SNES. Why should have anything to do with being put off at the price SF4 is?

I will never, ever, ever pay $60 for a new retail game again. I paid close to $100 for FFIII and Chrono Trigger back in the day, but that's when all I ever did was play video games, so it was money well spent.

If you want to pay an extra $20 to "support the industry" instead of waiting 2 or 3 months for a $40 price drop, that's great, but to me it's just throwing your money away. After all, what's the worst that could happen? Studios stop spending so much money producing games I'm not interested in playing anyway? Boo freaking hoo. Maybe they'll decide to spend more time on games that are fun instead of pushing the graphics in cutscenes faster towards the uncanny valley.

What's there to understand? He was pointing out that games have fallen in price quite a bit.
FF3 was released in 1990 @ 100 Dollars.
Now normally, inflation is around 3%, so if FF3 was released today, it should cost around 170 dollars.

SF 4 was released @ 70 Dollars. That's a 30% reduction in the price of a top tier game. Or, indexed for inflation, less than half the original cost.

Other than games, is there any other product that has done this over the last 20 years? I know people will point out computers and other Electronics, but overall, how has the price of a high end TV /Computer changed? What they can do has, but has the price?

Maybe games are too expensive for you. But in real world pricing, the price of a game has naver been lower

[scooterb23]

I haven't seen a video game in the past year that was worth spending over $20 of my own money on.

So, I would have to say yes, video games are overpriced.

I've spent $75 on more than one board game in that same amount of time. I guess I can get more value out of the board games anymore...

[boatofcar]

Other than games, is there any other product that has done this over the last 20 years? I know people will point out computers and other Electronics, but overall, how has the price of a high end TV /Computer changed? What they can do has, but has the price?

Maybe games are too expensive for you. But in real world pricing, the price of a game has naver been lower

:roll:Has the price of a high end TV/Computer changed? Ten years ago, how much was a 40" plasma? What was the average price of an IBM PC in 1981? What is the average price of a PC now? Did you even think before you wrote that?

And WTF is "real-world" pricing? Please show me where you get such information. Price is dependent on supply and demand. If enough people stop buying $60 games, $60 games will disappear.

[boatofcar]

What's there to understand? He was pointing out that games have fallen in price quite a bit.
FF3 was released in 1990 @ 100 Dollars.
Now normally, inflation is around 3%, so if FF3 was released today, it should cost around 170 dollars.

In what world do you live in where Final Fantasy 3 was released in 1990?

And at $100 MSRP?


Thanks for playing!

[bangtango]

Not singling anybody out here, this is more of a generalization that could apply to any gaming forum on the internet.

To me, the same people who complain about $50-60 video games being overpriced are the same people who complain about $10-15 cd's being "too expensive" and $15-20 movies being "too expensive."

Some people just are never going to be happy. You could price the next Dead Rising game at $20 and they'd still find something to piss and moan about. Entertainment has a cost and some people aren't happy about it. They think everything should be free, including a lunch.

Yet many of these same people have no problem dropping $40-60 or more for used PC Engine, Sega Saturn (imports) or Playstation 1 games online.

Nor do these same folks seem to mind paying market price for used Marvel vs. Capcom games...........or a myriad of other high-priced and USED games from 5, 10 or 15 years ago.

[G-Boobie]

In what world do you live in where Final Fantasy 3 was released in 1990?

And at $100 MSRP?


Thanks for playing!

I'm pretty sure he's referring to Final Fantasy VI and boned the release date. I remember Chrono Trigger being nearly one hundred dollars on release: thank God for optical media and it's cheap and efficient manufacturing processes.

Here's the problem: games have a significant amount of content for the money. An average RPG is forty hours or more, and even action games and FPS' seldom clock in at less than ten hours each. That doesn't count the potentially limitless playtime you could potentially eke out of online multiplayer. That's the justification for game prices being what they are, though the realities are more likely to be licensing costs and a relatively narrow consumer base.

That narrow consumer base(us, by the way) are crazy enough to buy quite a few of these games. We try and stay abreast of current gaming trends, and keep up with all the triple A releases. Most game consumers are not that crazy. They buy two, maybe three of these games a year, and that's enough for them. Not enough for the developers and publishers though: their costs have skyrocketed, and the core audience hasn't expanded wide enough to make up for it.

In the final analysis, games aren't really too expensive: making them is. Grand Theft Auto 4 didn't actually make a huge return: it was profitable, but if a game sells, what, ten million copies, it shouldn't be marginally profitable: it should be a WoW style super success. EA lost their asses last year, even though they had a pretty strong line up of big sellers. A couple thousand copies isn't enough anymore. They all need to be GTA 4 style sellers, and it simply isn't possible.

Nintendo, for all their faults and tarnished reputation with the 'core' audience, once again shows that it's ahead of the curve with the Wii and DS. Damn near everyone involved with it is making money. They're cheap and easy to develop for, and everyone has one. They've both reduced their own overhead, the overhead of their third party developers, AND increased the base of people they're selling to, all in three years. Sony, Microsoft, and the big third parties have some catching up to do...

[walrusmonger]

I don't think games cost too much- games are a luxury and if someone wants to play, there are tons of cheaper options compared to brand new $60 games and $300+ consoles.

It's like saying that handbags cost too much if all you try to buy are brand new louis vuitton bags- you could go to walmart and pick up a bag for a fraction of the price that will do pretty much the exact same thing.

[Zap!]

I don't understand your argument. Sure, I remember how much SF2 was when it came out for the SNES. Why should have anything to do with being put off at the price SF4 is?

It has plenty to do with it. It was $75 in 1992, which is $109.55 in 2007 (inflation calculator site didn't go past 2007). So $69.99 is far less than it used to be.



I will never, ever, ever pay $60 for a new retail game again. I paid close to $100 for FFIII and Chrono Trigger back in the day, but that's when all I ever did was play video games, so it was money well spent.

Never say never, or you won't be buying new games in 2025 or even 2020. By then, no new game will be $under $60, but it won't matter, since you will be making a lot more money.


If you want to pay an extra $20 to "support the industry" instead of waiting 2 or 3 months for a $40 price drop, that's great, but to me it's just throwing your money away. After all, what's the worst that could happen? Studios stop spending so much money producing games I'm not interested in playing anyway? Boo freaking hoo. Maybe they'll decide to spend more time on games that are fun instead of pushing the graphics in cutscenes faster towards the uncanny valley.

Not supporting anything, just pointing out that games in 2009 are cheaper than ever. A lot of brand new NES games in 1988 were $50. I don't even want to say how much that would be in today's money.

And if you think SF4 will be $40 in 2 or 3 months, well that would make you crazy. Most big-name games don't price drop quickly.

[Zap!]

Not singling anybody out here, this is more of a generalization that could apply to any gaming forum on the internet.

To me, the same people who complain about $50-60 video games being overpriced are the same people who complain about $10-15 cd's being "too expensive" and $15-20 movies being "too expensive."

Some people just are never going to be happy. You could price the next Dead Rising game at $20 and they'd still find something to piss and moan about. Entertainment has a cost and some people aren't happy about it. They think everything should be free, including a lunch.

Yet many of these same people have no problem dropping $40-60 or more for used PC Engine, Sega Saturn (imports) or Playstation 1 games online.

Nor do these same folks seem to mind paying market price for Marvel vs. Capcom games...........or a myriad of other high-priced and USED games from 5, 10 or 15 years ago.


To quote Chris Rock, I think they're just poor, broke bastards. :)

[stonecutter]

I remember the price of SFII back in 1992 as well, I wouldn't pay the 75 then either lol.

Since we are throwing out sayings lol, another saying "a fool and his money soon part"

I can wait the 2-3 months, in that time I am pretty sure my local Blockbuster will have it for 49.99 or 39.99 and some buy 1 get one half priced or such deal.

I have bought pleny of games new at 60 in the last 6 months, but in todays economy, I am sure myself and a lot of other people look a little closer at these prices and decide to wait. I just decided I have some pretty new games that I can still get a lot of play out of, and after that get a game like SFIV at a better price somewhere.

On the flip side I can understand someone who is into the series more than me can easily justify the early spend at top dollar, and get their enjoyment for three more months than me when it is a hotter item. Nothing wrong with that either, I know I have done it my share of times on new games or technology. Some items you just can't wait for depending on your interest.

[Zap!]

I remember the price of SFII back in 1992 as well, I wouldn't pay the 75 then either lol.

Since we are throwing out sayings lol, another saying "a fool and his money soon part"

I can wait the 2-3 months, in that time I am pretty sure my local Blockbuster will have it for 49.99 or 39.99 and some buy 1 get one half priced or such deal.

I have bought pleny of games new at 60 in the last 6 months, but in todays economy, I am sure myself and a lot of other people look a little closer at these prices and decide to wait. I just decided I have some pretty new games that I can still get a lot of play out of, and after that get a game like SFIV at a better price somewhere.

On the flip side I can understand someone who is into the series more than me can easily justify the early spend at top dollar, and get their enjoyment for three more months than me when it is a hotter item. Nothing wrong with that either, I know I have done it my share of times on new games or technology. Some items you just can't wait for depending on your interest.


I really don't think it will be cheaper so soon. Big name big hits don't get reduced so fast. Zelda Twilight Princess is still $50 on the Wii, and that was a launch game. Super Smash Bros. Brawl is a year old, and still $50 as well. As far as I know, MLB: The Show '08 didn't go down until the release of '09 neared. It's still expensive in my Blockbuster.

[CDiablo]

I dont feel the prices are too high. If I really want a $60 game(which I seldom do) I buy it, but most times I wait for it to drop to the $20-$30 range which doesnt take too long if you look around.

The thing I feel is out of control is DLC. The shit comes out right after the game is released and adds anywhere from $5-$30 to the overall price if you want the complete game.

[Rob2600]

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?

[Ed Oscuro]

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?"
Because developers were eating the cost. Way to treat your developers, Nintendo!

On the other hand, I love my N64 and its reliability, so.

Thank goodness for PSN and VC and Steam.

[Rob2600]

From a consumer standpoint, isn't paying $40 for a game that only costs $1 to manufacture a bigger rip-off than paying $50 for a game that costs $20 to manufacture?

[unwinddesign]

About half the people in this thread don't understand basic economics. People want games with amazing graphics, 5.1 surround sound, tons of content and online multiplayer. This costs A LOT of money. It's not cheap to put a game like SFIV together. Neither is it cheap to put a game like Condemned 2 together. I see no reason, however, for Condemned 2's existence from a business perspective. It was destined to fail from the beginning. Game companies have a tendency to do this; the market is way over-saturated. This is not why games are $60, though.

Look at the fucking credits for most games. More than 150 people are listed, a lot of the time. Some don't work directly on the game -- there's a lot more TV adverts and stuff now then there was ten, fifteen years ago. All those people are making at least 20k as a lowball. That's 3 million bucks they need to make back right there. Then you have the cost of manufacturing, distribution costs, cost of online play, licensing, engine costs...those add up quick. On a $60 game, the folks who make it might only see like $20 or $30 per copy sold; this is being generous. $60 is the market price. Games like FFVIII were $50 at release in '98.

Here's the kicker, though. FFVIII was $50 until it basically became a greatest hit. Now, must games drop in price within 2 to 3 months, plus the eBay market has games like GTA IV for $20.

Anyone remember when GTA III came out? It was $50 for literally like 2, 3 years after its release, basically until Vice City.

The people who say games are overpriced just don't get it. No ifs, not ands, no buts. You just don't get it. Wait three months and see the price drop if you're cheap; if you're not, then pay the $60 and shut the fuck up. Or, don't buy it period. There's plenty more forms of entertainment.

When I was seven or eight (1997, so not that long ago) a candy bar was .65 cents at the store. Now, the same size candy bar costs $1.09. That's a more than 50% increase in the span of ten years. The price of almost all food items is SO much higher than they were only a decade ago. Be happy that video games have stayed relatively stable. One video game a month at $60 is chump change, especially if you get 100+ hours out of it. 60 cents an hour? You're almost paying more for electricity.

I definitely don't think cheap asses are killing the industry; a lot of games aren't worth $60, despite what they cost to develop. But publishers can't list the MSRP at $40 -- it won't really do shit. Banjo Kazooie was launched at $40, and it really didn't sell like gangbusters. It sold close to a million copies, I believe, but not nearly as much as its fully priced predecessors. A lot of development studios aren't talented, and they put out shit games. Some development studios are talented, but suck at advertising. This is business; it's not enough to make a good product. You gotta make people want it, too.

[Bojay1997]

Games do cost too much. I remember paying $40 for new games in the Playstation days. There is no reason a game should be $60 by itself. It's not like we've gone back to cartridges.

No you didn't. MSRP on the A-list Playstation games were $49.99. This is the first generation that MSRP has gone up to $60 which I agree is too much in this economy, but let's not pretend that things were cheaper than they actually were back in the good old days.

[eugenek]

The people who say games are overpriced just don't get it. No ifs, not ands, no buts. You just don't get it. Wait three months and see the price drop if you're cheap; if you're not, then pay the $60 and shut the fuck up. Or, don't buy it period. There's plenty more forms of entertainment.

When I was seven or eight (1997, so not that long ago) a candy bar was .65 cents at the store. Now, the same size candy bar costs $1.09. That's a more than 50% increase in the span of ten years. The price of almost all food items is SO much higher than they were only a decade ago. Be happy that video games have stayed relatively stable. One video game a month at $60 is chump change, especially if you get 100+ hours out of it. 60 cents an hour? You're almost paying more for electricity.


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.

[Rob2600]

Look at the fucking credits for most games. More than 150 people are listed, a lot of the time.

True, but what about games like World of Goo? Only a few people worked on that game and it was one of the best of 2008....and it debuted for only $15 (WiiWare) and $20 (CD-ROM).

"World of Goo was imagined by two ex-Electronic Arts developers, Kyle Gabler and Ron Carmel. Their game studio, 2D Boy, was essentially based out of whatever Wi-Fi enabled coffee shop they could find. The developers estimate spending about $10,000 of their personal savings to develop World of Goo which includes rent, food, and minimal equipment."

Not every game needs a ridiculously high budget to succeed.


Besides, when I go to a movie theater, it doesn't matter if the movie's budget was $1 million or $300 million. I pay the same price for my ticket either way. The tickets for bigger-budget movies don't cost more.



One video game a month at $60 is chump change, especially if you get 100+ hours out of it. 60 cents an hour? You're almost paying more for electricity.


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.

Eugene is right. In NJ, I pay roughly 6 cents/kWh for delivery, plus roughly 11 cents/kWh for supply. That equals roughly 17 cents/kWh, not 60 cents.

Then again, Unwinddesign is only 19 years old and probably hasn't started paying his own electric bill yet, so he probably didn't know what the actual cost is.

[Ed Oscuro]

From a consumer standpoint, isn't paying $40 for a game that only costs $1 to manufacture a bigger rip-off than paying $50 for a game that costs $20 to manufacture?
No, and that's ignoring the likely comparative production values and a false read of history anyway.

Remember that there were plenty of budget releases on the PSX, and games were still being made for the system just a few years ago. I can't think of a single budget N64 release, and long-term support was nonexistent.

[Bojay1997]

True, but what about games like World of Goo? Only a few people worked on that game and it was one of the best of 2008....and it debuted for only $15 (WiiWare) and $20 (CD-ROM).

"World of Goo was imagined by two ex-Electronic Arts developers, Kyle Gabler and Ron Carmel. Their game studio, 2D Boy, was essentially based out of whatever Wi-Fi enabled coffee shop they could find. The developers estimate spending about $10,000 of their personal savings to develop World of Goo which includes rent, food, and minimal equipment."

Not every game needs a ridiculously high budget to succeed.


Besides, when I go to a movie theater, it doesn't matter if the movie's budget was $1 million or $300 million. I pay the same price for my ticket either way. The tickets for bigger-budget movies don't cost more.






Eugene is right. In NJ, I pay roughly 6 cents/kWh for delivery, plus roughly 11 cents/kWh for supply. That equals roughly 17 cents/kWh, not 60 cents.

I think you make some interesting points, however, I don't think a game like World of Goo is really what we are talking about here. I agree that it is possible to have a couple of people create a fun game and sell it for a budget price, but I'm not gonna spend an entire weekend playing World of Goo. A game like GTA IV or Super Mario Galaxy or Killzone 2 is something I would devote significant time to playing. As such, I agree that there needs to be a premium to compensate developers and publishers of very ambitious games. Having said that, however, I don't necessarily agree that new games should cost $60, especially when the cost of other entertainment is actually coming down in price.

I think the comparison of games to films is a good one, as long as you understand that the chances of someone making a $100 million film or even a $25 million film without a proven market for the product is very, very hard to do. Just like niche films, the number of niche games on consoles will continue to decrease, particularly since unlike films, there is no easy secondary DVD/Blu Ray market, PPV or indie theater chains willing to take some of the risk and cover costs. Services like Wiiware or Xbox Live may seem like dream venues for indy developers, but they won't front a small developer money or allow them to get a line of credit with a bank the way a distribution deal for DVDs or even a guaranteed limited theatrical run will do. The PC is also not the best distribution method simply because piracy and a shrinking market share make it a hard market to make money in.

[Rob2600]

I can't think of a single budget N64 release

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.



that's ignoring the likely comparative production values and a false read of history anyway.

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 CDs only cost 1/10th the price to manufacture than cartridges."

Um, so who's the moron who's paying $40 for a $2 CD?


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

[TheDomesticInstitution]

Video games have become such a mainstream form of entertainment, that the market is completely saturated with releases. The amount of games being released every year generally means that retailers and game companies are eager to clear shelf space for new product. For the consumer, this is great, because it doesn't take too long for a $60 to become a $20-$30 game.

So no, I don't think games cost too much. I have the patience to wait for a game to be reduced in price, so I usually don't bitch about the initial price point. This means that I'm probably not the 1st to play the hottest and latest game, but I have other things to worry about.

The website cheapassgamer.com, has saved me a lot of money.

Next question...

[Rob2600]

The amount of games being released every year generally means that retailers and game companies are eager to clear shelf space for new product. For the consumer, this is great, because it doesn't take too long for a $60 to become a $20-$30 game.

So no, I don't think games cost too much. I have the patience to wait for a game to be reduced in price

Evidently, you do think games cost too much if you always wait for a 50% to 66% price drop.

[TonyTheTiger]

I don't think games cost to much in the sense that I'm unwilling to pay full price for something I really want. But they do cost too much in the sense that because of my large gaming appetite I have to be incredibly discriminatory regarding which games I pay full price for. If I only wanted to play maybe 5 or 6 games a year then price wouldn't be much of an issue.

I do think, however, that price has a profound effect on the types of games we get. As much as people clamor for new ideas and new IPs, the vast majority seems far more inclined to buy the 5th game in an established series. I'm certain that if game prices were more comparable to DVD/Blu-ray consumers would be a lot more willing to give something new a shot. In fact, a great game like Psychonauts would probably not have fallen flat on its face if the hobby weren't as expensive as it is.

[Gentlegamer]

Video games have become such a mainstream form of entertainment, that the market is completely saturated with releases. The amount of games being released every year generally means that retailers and game companies are eager to clear shelf space for new product. For the consumer, this is great, because it doesn't take too long for a $60 to become a $20-$30 game.

So no, I don't think games cost too much. I have the patience to wait for a game to be reduced in price, so I usually don't bitch about the initial price point. This means that I'm probably not the 1st to play the hottest and latest game, but I have other things to worry about.

The website cheapassgamer.com, has saved me a lot of money.
+1, especially the CAG part.

I think "paying too much" for a game is avoided if you do not let a "backlog" of games pile up. If you buy a full price game, and play it extensively, by the time you're finished, other quality titles will have dropped in price at retail. Then, you can pick out the next game you want.

[Gentlegamer]

Evidently, you do think games cost too much if you always wait for a 50% to 66% price drop.I think he means that those price drops are part and parcel of the current retail environment, so they should be considered in the overall price discussion, i.e. games are cheaper than we think.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

Evidently, you do think games cost too much if you always wait for a 50% to 66% price drop.

Thanks for the input Rob.

I'm sorry everyone, I DO think games cost too much. I always look forward to your corrections of my statements or opinions on this message board. Nintendo sucks, leave me the fuck alone.

[megasdkirby]

For me, it's not about a game being too expensive, instead, it's the psychological mentality about customers purchasing games at the high price.

Many justify a $60 (or any normal price game today) as justifiable simply because it's a new game and it's "worth it". Take for example Metal Gear Solid 4: I would pressume many purchased the game for $60 simply for the fact that they expect a fantastic game. If they game is good, the price is right. It's similar to those getting consoles. I am referring to the overall value of something they think it is worth.

Truth be told, everyone like things cheaper. Like I mentioned previously, many justify the $60 price tag as "worth it". Yet if the same game is obtained cheaper, the better it is!

"$60 for God of War III is well worth the price...but $40 is even better!"

So are games today expensive? That is to the high of the beholder. However, if it's cheaper, the beholder likes it more!

My take is that games should be lowered in price. I bet that even if a killer game costs $20 less than normal, it will sell more than with a higher price tag. And thus, obtain more revenue for the company.

Of course, many other factors come in play. But I feel that if games are cheaper, even slightly, it will help propagate it even further and help both the customer and the company.

Also, I very much doubt someone would complain about paying $40 for a $60 game...although things in this world are really weird... LOL

IMO