Is it me, or are about 5% of games worth full retail value?

[duffmanth]

I'm beginning to rent games a little more regularly now because I've wasted my time and $$ on some pretty shitty games over the years. Am I alone in thinking that maybe 5% or less of the games out there are actually worth full retail value ($50-70 range)?

To me the games that ARE worth that much money are your epic AAA games like Metal Gear, Final Fantasy, Halo, Gran Turismo, GTA, Zelda, Mario, and so on. In my opinion any game that's based on a movie or TV show, sports games, games that come out on an annual basis, etc, AREN'T worth full retail prices. I'm talking about games like Need for Speed, Spider-Man, Wolverine, The Simpson's Game, Leisure Suit Larry, Nascar, Mercenaries 2, Midnight Club, etc. To me, these are games that should be $30 at the most.

Does anyone else have similar thoughts??

[Sniderman]

It's simple economics:

If you'll pay $45-$50 for "Final Fantasy Whatever-Number-We're-On," "Resident Evil Whatever-Number-We're-On," and/or "Grand Theft Whatever-Number-We're-On," then don't be surprised if every other game has a price exactly the same. Things are worth what people will pay, and other similar things will sell for that exact same price point.

Buyer beware and/or wait for the reviews to come out before purchasing. If you buy on launch day, you takes your chances with potential crap.

[jcalder8]

I would say less than 1% are worth full retail value. That's why I buy used or wait for them to go down in price or go on sale.

I'm not even sure what the last game that I paid full retail price on was.

[chicnstu]

The Wolverine game is actually pretty good, probably not worth $60, but still good.

[garagesaleking!!]

i always buy madden every year on launch day, its the only game i ever buy new, i dont know there is just something special about having it right away, you get a lot more enjoyment out of it, and hey its cheaper than a ticket to a game, but i pretty much agree with everything you said.

[kupomogli]

Like jcalder8 said. Less than 1% of games are worth their full retail price.

Of course a game like Final Fantasy is going to be a well developed title(though not necessarily good,) no matter what the release. Square has such a large fanbase which is why they're going to put a high amount of development time and capital into it.

More than likely a game that is from a well known series is going to have more development time tacked onto it than something new. It's alot nicer when you actually get a game that isn't from an ongoing series that's actualy good.

[BetaWolf47]

The reason we're reluctant to pay $40-$70 on new releases is because we've conditioned ourselves to only pay that much for AAA, rare retrogames. We're kind of spoiled to have hundreds of classic games that we've acquired for $30 and less. I myself wait for price drops on 90% of the games I buy.

[Clownzilla]

I find $60-$70 per game outrageous regardless of the "production costs". Gamers complain about prices and are pirating at an alarming rate because they just can't afford it.It doesn't matter how good the game is, $60-$70 is just too expensive for a video game in today's economy. Also, before people come back with the "price of movie tickets" analogy please realize that these same people can't afford the movies either. Many of these people choose to sit at home and watch rented DVD's, TV, old games, etc. or choose to go out and do something free. I buy my games around $20-$30 and it has to be a game of epic proportions if the developers want even a cent more than that.

[TonyTheTiger]

Regardless of whether or not $60-$70 is "too much" or "just right," I have always wondered how the gross revenue is distributed for video games. Generally speaking, a DVD, and even a Blu-ray, never costs more than $30-$35 (and that would be a pretty expensive DVD at that price). So where is the money going that causes game prices to be what they are? Games may cost a lot to produce but movies generally cost more. And film production costs rarely have an effect on DVD prices. The Transformers DVD doesn't cost more than some random foreign film. In fact, it might actually cost less. So I'm not sure what the math is that determines the sticker price.

As for whether or not games are worth the launch price, it's hard for me to justify spending that much on any one game for two reasons. First, games these days devalue extremely quickly so it's often worth waiting for a $20 drop. Second, I tend to buy too many games. Unless you're especially well off it's not possible to buy all your games brand new at launch and simultaneously buy a lot of games. Even if I could afford it, it would be stupid because by the time I'm ready to play a game it's often already gone through a price drop or two.

This topic is as old as the industry. It's always been an expensive hobby and we've more or less learned to deal with it. But I don't think there's anybody around who wouldn't attribute a good bit of Nintendo's current success to its pricing strategy.

[Clownzilla]

Regardless of whether or not $60-$70 is "too much" or "just right," I have always wondered how the gross revenue is distributed for video games. Generally speaking, a DVD, and even a Blu-ray, never costs more than $30-$35 (and that would be a pretty expensive DVD at that price). So where is the money going that causes game prices to be what they are?

As for whether or not games are worth the launch price, it's hard for me to justify spending that much on any one game for two reasons. First, games these days devalue extremely quickly so it's often worth waiting for a $20 drop. Second, I tend to buy too many games. Unless you're especially well off it's not possible to buy all your games brand new at launch and simultaneously buy a lot of games. Even if I could afford it, it would be stupid because by the time I'm ready to play a game it's often already gone through a price drop or two.

I'm sure that a large portion of that price does go to expenses. Advertising, distribution, paying the team of developers, etc. can get pricey. Face it, many games today are getting more expensive to make. That still doesn't change the fact that $60-$70 is still WAY to expensive. Why spend money on making a cutting edge game when the consumer can't pay the opening MSRP? Many consumers don't even require "cutting edge". I myself would fall over backwards if Nintendo rereleased Super Mario Bros. with an official (simple and well made) level editor and online level trading built right in. Couple that with various challenge modes (like SMBDX for Gameboy) and that would make a good chunk of $$$ without having to spend tens of millions on development.

[Trebuken]

Most people are only interested in 5% of the games released so why would you pay for a game your not interested in. I have no interest in sports titles or the WWF or UFC title of the week, but many RPG's or first person shooters will get my $$$, mostly the blockbuster titles...I may pick up Infamous for example, it's getting good reviews...

I don't trade in any games but I believe many do and being able to get 50% of your money back (if you do it quickly) goes a long way towards making the price bearable.

[TonyTheTiger]

I'm sure that a large portion of that price does go to expenses. Advertising, distribution, paying the team of developers, etc. can get pricey. Face it, many games today are getting more expensive to make. That still doesn't change the fact that $60-$70 is still WAY to expensive. Why spend money on making a cutting edge game when the consumer can't pay the opening MSRP? Many consumers don't even require "cutting edge". I myself would fall over backwards if Nintendo rereleased Super Mario Bros. with an official (simple and well made) level editor and online level trading built right in. Couple that with various challenge modes (like SMBDX for Gameboy) and that would make a good chunk of $$$ without having to spend tens of millions on development.

Yes but every one of those things factors into the cost of making a Hollywood blockbuster and, more often than not, those costs are higher when compared to the average video game. Yet a DVD of said movie costs about half the price of said game. That confuses me. The same applies to price variations. Go find a DVD at Best Buy, at FYE, on Amazon, and on Deep Discount, and you'll likely find four different prices for the same DVD. Sometimes the price varies by quite a bit. That's not so with a new game. You can sometimes find it a little cheaper online but it's less common and usually the price difference is not significant. I have to be missing something because the math doesn't add up.

[chicnstu]

Generally speaking, a DVD, and even a Blu-ray, never costs more than $30-$35 (and that would be a pretty expensive DVD at that price). So where is the money going that causes game prices to be what they are? Games may cost a lot to produce but movies generally cost more. And film production costs rarely have an effect on DVD prices. The Transformers DVD doesn't cost more than some random foreign film. In fact, it might actually cost less. So I'm not sure what the math is that determines the sticker price.

Movies are first shown in theaters. Usually when someone buys a game, the whole family will be able to play it all they want. When the movie is in theaters, each person has to have their own ticket (what is it, $5 per ticket on average?) and they see it once. Movies are a much shorter experience than games. And, the movie business is larger than games so they are able to charge that $5 per ticket and make a ton of money, then they are able to release it in stores and make more.

But I'm not saying one is better than the other, I really don't know.

[duffmanth]

I used to work at a video game retail store and can tell you that we marked the game up about $5-10, same with accessories, and systems we were lucky to make a few $$ profit at all. So there is next to no profit on new games, systems, and accessories, that's why so many retailers are carrying used games because they give you fuck all for them then mark those games up huge. That's where places like Gamestop make a lot of their profits.

I would say most of the cost of a game comes from marketing, manufacturing and design costs. It still doesn't justify most games going for $60 new.

[TonyTheTiger]

Movies are first shown in theaters. Usually when someone buys a game, the whole family will be able to play it all they want. When the movie is in theaters, each person has to have their own ticket (what is it, $5 per ticket on average?) and they see it once. Movies are a much shorter experience than games. And, the movie business is larger than games so they are able to charge that $5 per ticket and make a ton of money, then they are able to release it in stores and make more.

But I'm not saying one is better than the other, I really don't know.

But still, plenty of movies are straight to DVD and the price is comparable to other movies that did have theatrical releases. I'll never get this but I would love to see a clear break down of every dollar in and out to see just where the final sticker price comes from.

[duffmanth]

Like jcalder8 said. Less than 1% of games are worth their full retail price.

Of course a game like Final Fantasy is going to be a well developed title(though not necessarily good,) no matter what the release. Square has such a large fanbase which is why they're going to put a high amount of development time and capital into it.

More than likely a game that is from a well known series is going to have more development time tacked onto it than something new. It's alot nicer when you actually get a game that isn't from an ongoing series that's actualy good.
Yeah maybe only 1% of the games out there are worth full value! It's games like FF, Metal Gear and Halo, among others that are worth full price I think. Those games are consistently epic releases that always remain fresh and innovative and to me are THE VERY FEW games that are worth going out and getting on launch day for full price.

How games like Haze, Mercenaries 2, Lair, Leisure Suit Larry, Need for Speed: Undercover and others even make it to retail is beyond me. Don't these developers and publishers test these pieces of shit before they charge $60 for them!?

I won't even buy EA games anymore because of games like the ones mentioned above.

[kupomogli]

I won't even buy EA games anymore because of games like the ones mentioned above.

EA is just a high profile shovelware company. I remember when they actually made good Need for Speed games. NFS Hot Pursuit 2 and everything previous was amazing. Why have you ruined your greatest series EA?

[duffmanth]

This article supports my point exactly: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6210357.html?tag=latestheadlines;title;4

[Therealqtip]

It's simple economics:

If you'll pay $45-$50 for "Final Fantasy Whatever-Number-We're-On," "Resident Evil Whatever-Number-We're-On," and/or "Grand Theft Whatever-Number-We're-On," then don't be surprised if every other game has a price exactly the same. Things are worth what people will pay, and other similar things will sell for that exact same price point.

Buyer beware and/or wait for the reviews to come out before purchasing. If you buy on launch day, you takes your chances with potential crap.

RE isn't that bad for having millions of different games. Well maybe but for the storyline there's only 5.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

Here's a big discussion on this only 2 and a half months ago.

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=131165

[Nature Boy]

Am I alone in thinking that maybe 5% or less of the games out there are actually worth full retail value ($50-70 range)?

I think the '5-10% great, 90-95% is crap' rule applies to everything, not just games.

For me personally, if I don't purchase a 360 game at full retail value (which means generally right after it's released) I likely won't bother picking it up if/when it does drop in price. By that point there is often another brand spanking new game I'm much more interested in.

[WhatsMyUsername]

Ya it has gotten worse as of late. Now on top of it all here where i am most games are starting at 70 dollars now instead of the 60 it has been for years. I have now vowed to only pay full price on those games that are really worth it. and used games it is /later discounted games for me.

[kupomogli]

Ya it has gotten worse as of late. Now on top of it all here where i am most games are starting at 70 dollars now instead of the 60 it has been for years. I have now vowed to only pay full price on those games that are really worth it. and used games it is /later discounted games for me.

Looks like you need to order online.

[Jorpho]

I think the '5-10% great, 90-95% is crap' rule applies to everything, not just games.The term is Sturgeon's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law).

I paid $45 CDN for The World Ends With You about a year ago, mostly because it looked like it was going to be impossible to find if I didn't pick it up right away. (And of course I still haven't played it.) That's by far the most expensive single game I've bought in a very long time.

[TonyTheTiger]

I paid $45 CDN for The World Ends With You about a year ago, mostly because it looked like it was going to be impossible to find if I didn't pick it up right away. (And of course I still haven't played it.) That's by far the most expensive single game I've bought in a very long time.

That fear has grabbed me a few times with some late release PS2 games. I've bought a few games at launch that looked interesting. I normally would have waited to raid Gamestop's used rack for them with "buy 2 get 1 free" coupons but I was worried they'd disappear. Consider it an unfortunate case of conditioning stemming from years back when I put off buying certain SNES, Saturn and PSOne games (often late releases) that looked interesting but now can't find them for a reasonable price.

[CDiablo]

I agree with most games not being worth the cash new. This whole gen has been high on the visuals and low on the gameplay time.

Dont for get the DLC cost so you can get the "complete" experience. I feel PC gaming is usually a really good value cause games usually drop in price pretty quick.

[Baloo]

That fear has grabbed me a few times with some late release PS2 games. I've bought a few games at launch that looked interesting. I normally would have waited to raid Gamestop's used rack for them with "buy 2 get 1 free" coupons but I was worried they'd disappear. Consider it an unfortunate case of conditioning stemming from years back when I put off buying certain SNES, Saturn and PSOne games (often late releases) that looked interesting but now can't find them for a reasonable price.

And let's not forget the king of late releases, Panzer Dragoon Saga.

[kupomogli]

The only games that are usually worth the full retail value are first party titles. With Sony and Microsoft it's because they take longer to drop, but actually do have price drops. With Nintendo, it's just because their first party titles never drop in price, so you may as well pick them up at that price if you like the games.

Infamous is worth the 59.99 after playing and enjoying the demo, but I'm going going to wait until it gets a price drop since that $60 is going to go towards Demon's Souls once it's released. Since Demon's Souls is aimed towards the hardcore fanbase, I'm going to wait a week and check someplace like VGChartz to see how the sales are going and determine if it's going to receive a price drop anytime soon, but unless it sells terrible to where I think it'll drop as fast as Valkyria Chronicles did, then I'm going to pick it up without waiting.

There's another thing. Sega makes such a great game, and then it sells like crap. No wonder they rarely attempt to push anything amazing out there. I really hope Yakuza 3 gets a US release.

[Jorpho]

Spending $60 on a PC game is especially hard to justify, since so many of them just become so much cheaper within a few months of release. And if you wait even longer, you'll be able to play them with many of the nice extra features without having to spend hundreds upon hundreds of dollars on cutting-edge hardware.

And I should also add that it's really hard to justify spending that much on any game when I have dozens of them sitting around that I haven't played yet! :frustrated:

[darkslime]

I rarely pay for new games now, the last game I bought on launch day was persona 4 and that was because I really wanted to play it. That game was definitely worth 40 bucks.

Honestly, I have a 360 but the only game I have bought for it this year was lost oddysey because it was on sear's clearance for 10 bucks. Have been buying a bunch of used ps2 and gamecube.

[crom]

at first I agree with you... its actually shown in the wii games, how most of them are about 30 bucks...

but then why should any of us care if were not going to buy the over priced games?

I absolutely love downloading the demo b4 I buy it thanks to xbox live and psn... I dont know if they know it or not, but thanks to being able to do that I have saved soo much money testing the game b4 I bought it...

I dont rent games anymore because blockbuster is stupid rental prices these dats and times

[Icarus Moonsight]

That fear has grabbed me a few times with some late release PS2 games. I've bought a few games at launch that looked interesting. I normally would have waited to raid Gamestop's used rack for them with "buy 2 get 1 free" coupons but I was worried they'd disappear. Consider it an unfortunate case of conditioning stemming from years back when I put off buying certain SNES, Saturn and PSOne games (often late releases) that looked interesting but now can't find them for a reasonable price.

Seconding this. Too true man, too true. Panzer Dragoon Saga Anxiety Syndrome. O_O

Damn you Baloo! Beat me to it. LOL

[Cobra Commander]

I guess some of you kiddies weren't around when we payed $80+ at Toys R Us for games like Street Fighter II and Final Fantasy III. I remember those days quite clearly and $60 sounds like goddamn double coupon day at the dollar store compared to that.
I've never seen some many gamers who hate buying games....

[TonyTheTiger]

All that means is that cartridges cost more to produce and so games were even more expensive than they are now. You can't point to a Ferrari and use that as proof that a BMW isn't expensive. Even if $60 is cheaper than $80, it's still not cheap. Everybody who is serious about the hobby, except perhaps the really well off ones, have memories of trying to manage the cost back in the day. Just because games are a little less expensive now doesn't change that those same people are doing the exact same managing today.

The dirty little secret that MS, Sony, and Nintendo don't want to acknowledge is that the reason Gamestop is so successful is because the used game market is so lucrative and the reason it is so lucrative is because of how prohibitive a $50-$60 price can be. Ten games a year is half a grand or more if all of them are bought brand new. Nintendo is actually half acknowledging that with the DS and Wii and to great success.

But, again, the price may be justified. I, however, just don't see how the numbers add up when the nearest comparable industry, film, regularly sells more expensive productions on the same format for half the price. And no matter how many times I ask, nobody can point out the missing component in my probably flawed math.

[boatofcar]

But, again, the price may be justified. I, however, just don't see how the numbers add up when the nearest comparable industry, film, regularly sells more expensive productions on the same format for half the price. And no matter how many times I ask, nobody can point out the missing component in my probably flawed math.

Because movies make the bulk of their money in the theater. Direct to DVD releases have tiny budgets, so they can be sold at $20 or $30.

[unwinddesign]

All that means is that cartridges cost more to produce and so games were even more expensive than they are now. You can't point to a Ferrari and use that as proof that a BMW isn't expensive. Even if $60 is cheaper than $80, it's still not cheap. Everybody who is serious about the hobby, except perhaps the really well off ones, have memories of trying to manage the cost back in the day. Just because they're a little less expensive now doesn't change that those same people are doing the exact same thing today.

The dirty little secret that MS, Sony, and Nintendo don't want to acknowledge is that the reason Gamestop is so successful is because the used game market is so lucrative and the reason it is so lucrative is because of how prohibitive a $50-$60 price can be. Ten games a year is half a grand or more if all of them are bought brand new.

But, again, the price may be justified. I, however, just don't see how the numbers add up when the nearest comparable industry, film, regularly sells more expensive productions on the same format for half the price. And no matter how many times I ask, nobody can point out the missing component in my probably flawed math.

Films make money off the box office. They also get a cut of rentals. Game companies generally don't get a cut of rentals. Film studios also have a lot more funding, generally speaking, and a bigger install base for users (anyone with a DVD player). Films that go straight to DVD don't cost tens of millions of dollars to produce. There are so many different elements that go into a game -- all the licenses and all that -- that once you get down to it, you're not making that much money back on your $60 game. There's no licensing fees to print a DVD, either; you have to pay MS, Sony or whoever for the privilege of releasing a game on their console.

Given inflation, games are cheaper than ever now. You can get tons of free games online, downloadables for $5 - $10 on PSN/XBLA, and retail releases for $60, which is less than most games cost back in the day. Back in '96, a candy bar was like 65 cents. Now it's a buck and a nickel, and it keeps creeping up at an alarming rate (these are not scientific data samples, just comparisons at the local Wawa over the years). Back in '96, I'm pretty sure my parents spent $70+ on Donkey Kong Country 3 for the SNES.Sure, a lot of games were $40 or $50 during the PS2 era...Sony released titles were $40, and the main price point was $50. But...

Anyone remember the price on GTA3? $50 for literally like 2, 3 years. Even used it was expensive as hell, up until a few months after Vice City was released. Games drop in price in mere weeks now, whereas even going only a couple years back, that same price drop would take months, if not the better part of a year. I could get GTA IV for $20-$25 used about 7 months after its release. If new games are "too expensive" -- which they aren't, both historically speaking and competitively to other forms of entertainment (baseball game: $20+, movie: $10, strip club: $expensive etc. etc.). I really find that to be a ridiculously inaccurate statement. Not to say all games are worth $60 -- most still aren't -- but that's because their crap, not because the price point is outlandish. $60 for Halo 3? I easily put 300 hours into that game. 20 cents an hour for entertainment? Cable is more expensive than that.

There are plenty of alternatives to buying $60 games that I don't see why people bitch about it. If you want to be an early adopter, you pay the price to play Fallout 3 when it's "the game of the season" rather than buy the Game of the Year edition that saves you $50 on all the DLC (since it's bundled in). Sure, you have to wait a year for the cheaper version, but if you're patient the game is the same (patched, even -_-). It's called opportunity cost.

I love the games market now. Better than ever for scoring bargains. Hell, even Best Buy, Amazon etc. offer deals...such as Banjo Kazooie free w/ Banjo: Nuts and Bolts, or $10 off Mad-World before it was even released to name a few off the top of my head.

[TonyTheTiger]

Because movies make the bulk of their money in the theater. Direct to DVD releases have tiny budgets, so they can be sold at $20 or $30.

But movies that flop in the theater don't cost more on DVD. So that explanation is not entirely sound. And direct to DVD movies often have higher budgets than some games sold at $50. There's definitely some kind of mandatory pricing strategy employed by MS/Sony/Nintendo. They wouldn't want some company coming in and undercutting everything. But then again you have budget titles at $20 and even something like Octomania at $10. Octomania is particularly strange because it's basically a game that you'd expect would be download only and sold at $10 but instead it's sold as a normal release (presumably incurring all related production/distribution costs) and yet still is only $10. Did nobody make money on that game?


There's no licensing fees to print a DVD, either; you have to pay MS, Sony or whoever for the privilege of releasing a game on their console.

This is probably the best explanation. It's got to be why PC games usually cost less. In the end, however, when you're talking raw numbers, Transformers required a larger investment on all fronts than Disgaea 3 yet Disgaea 3 costs a bit more for the end user. The revenue stream for Transformers, had it flopped in theaters, would have been lower and yet the DVD would not have cost more. I'm guessing that pricing is sort of standardized. So you aren't going to have a flop costing more on DVD. It'll just be a less profitable film and the studio moves on to another project. Games are certainly the same way with a pricing standard often regardless of production costs. It's why Shenmue was such a drain on Sega. So maybe the proper question isn't so much whether $60 is justified per game but rather if $60 is the necessary standard. But in order to determine that we'd have to see the breakdown of how a dollar is dispersed.


Anyone remember the price on GTA3? $50 for literally like 2, 3 years. Even used it was expensive as hell, up until a few months after Vice City was released. Games drop in price in mere weeks now, whereas even going only a couple years back, that same price drop would take months, if not the better part of a year. I could get GTA IV for $20-$25 used about 7 months after its release.

That's another thing. Where did this come from all of a sudden? I can only imagine that it's the publishers trying to keep up with the used game market. It's definitely a good time for bargain hunters, no question. But even so, it's never been a "cheap" hobby and probably never will be. But nowadays nothing is. I remember years back just going to the movies for the hell of it to see just about anything. Tickets were $3 at my local theater. Now I can only justify the price for movies on my "must see" list. Everybody has to adapt in some way because price does matter.

[UK Collector]

If a film flops, then the studio loses money. But it wont recoup those loses with an expensively priced DVD, so it has to sell at a price which will shift units, otherwise the whole thing is a business loss. Also, films are shown on TV, which brings in yet more revenue. There are also things such as licenced products to consider. There are so many alternative revenue streams for a film compared to a game, which is why game companies are trying to find a way to force DLC etc on you.

[robotriot]

Games are pretty expensive at full price, especially here in Germany. That's why I've recently started ordering online from the UK. For example, I'm now getting Fuel for PS3 new for €33.58 (incl shipping) instead of €69,45 (!) which is the regular price in stores or on German Amazon.

[Ed Oscuro]

How are the games going to get made if nobody pays full price (or a discounted price) for them?

Of course, some smart operator is going to say "aha! Henceforth, only good games shall be made!"

The only problem with that is...that's what the industry's been trying to do. Cut out movie license games and sports (and good games got their start there) and you'll find out that "quality" is a moving target. Even if you start off with good design principles, markets and money can screw over the best development idea.

Of course I'm part of the movement that has been shying away from paying full price for retail games recently. The last games I bought at full price were all Valve Software stuff (and you have to pay their price, but they also make it more affordable - $40 and a lot of mostly content customers means business will be booming and they won't have money draining away from secondary sales either - even without Steam, which has been the major component of their success, I'd say that the discounted retail price helps a lot - and I've been getting almost all my Steam titles retail, with the exception of one CC purchase and one OEM pack-in).

So the other direction, instead of creating impossible restrictions on games because of their "quality," which is as much about intangibles as it is about things that can be measured, is to look for ways in which the projects that you don't want to pay $60 for can be funded otherwise. EA has been looking at this recently with games such as Battlefield Heroes; even if you don't like EA you should hope that model works because otherwise you'll have to pay or the games won't be made.


But movies that flop in the theater don't cost more on DVD. So that explanation is not entirely sound.
You missed boatofcar's point. It's all about balancing profits against a reasonable shelf price: Consumers have price expectations (as this thread amply demonstrates), and the immediate concern in a DVD release is making a profit on that enterprise by itself, without worrying about previous releases as those are water under the bridge. So what if you'd need to sell each copy at $100 to make a profit on the original release? That's already been written off by the film studios.

Put another way: Take a big extravagant flop, like some Terry Gilliam film; don't you think that there is a price point that people would be willing to pay, and folks lined up to make a deal for a release? Maybe the fanbase is thought to be receptive to a "limited edition" type release as well. The fact that said movie lost money a decade or just ten weeks ago off the initial investment isn't a big deal, however: No DVD distributor is going to pay a larger fee for the distribution rights than is warranted by the home video market, because then they would be taking a loss. Of course, whoever owns the rights to the original film is looking to make whatever money they can, and they can't demand a larger fee or cut than is reasonable - else nobody will take up the offer. At this point, all they need to do - and can do - is just find a reasonable distribution deal. From their standpoint, at this point any money they can make off home video is pretty much free money.

The story of how film studios claim losses when they actually turn profits is another story, of course.

[Jorpho]

Doesn't the typical DVD also sell a lot more copies than the typical videogame, eventually? I reckon the typical DVD also stays in print a lot longer too.


The last games I bought at full price were all Valve Software stuff (and you have to pay their price)Everything goes on sale on Steam eventually, it seems, provided you're patient. (No way I'm paying $15 for Braid. It's just a matter of time.)

[Nature Boy]

I guess some of you kiddies weren't around when we payed $80+ at Toys R Us for games like Street Fighter II and Final Fantasy III.

Hell we paid close to $100 back in the VCS days! Of course that wasn't me, that was my dad :)

I did pay $90 for Hexen on the N64 though. Very ouch.

[tubeway]

Why do games cost so much? We're used to paying it, so there's no reason for companies to start selling games at a lower price. Companies are there to make as much money as possible, not to save us money or do us any favors.

There's also the perception of value when it comes to cost. People assume a $20 budget game is going to be crap compared to a $60 major release.

[TonyTheTiger]

If a film flops, then the studio loses money. But it wont recoup those loses with an expensively priced DVD, so it has to sell at a price which will shift units, otherwise the whole thing is a business loss.

Yeah, exactly. And even if game development isn't going according to plan, the publisher isn't going to say "Well, this game sucks so we better price it accordingly." There is definitely a pricing standard but that means that it's a price not determined by the profitability of the individual product but rather the highest price the consumer base is likely to swallow. I'm sure if MS and Sony came out at E3 and said "we have to start charging $90 per game" there will be a lot of booing. You'll always find that one guy who tries to argue "well, they're charging a fair price and if you can't afford it, tough luck." But, in general, that probably surpasses what most people are willing to swallow.

Likewise, if MS and Sony decided to compete with the Wii's more budget priced games and said "every game will now cost $15" there will be plenty of cheers. But that price, while very attractive to the consumer, falls well below what they'd be willing to pay thus screwing devs and publishers out of revenue. I'm sure there is plenty of market research devoted to finding that "sweet spot" where the price is high enough to bring in the most possible revenue but low enough so people are willing to, perhaps begrudgingly so, pay the full price for a game/DVD/etc. That doesn't necessarily have to be correlated to the cost of production. It can be (and often is) but it doesn't have to be.


Also, films are shown on TV, which brings in yet more revenue.

Very true. Though I don't know if that necessarily contributes to the price difference. I think it does contribute to another anomaly, though. It shows that a good movie is likely going to bring in revenue longer than a good game and so it's probably why in film it's rare to make anything beyond a fourth movie in a series but in games you regularly see sequels in the double digits. Batman Returns can regularly make money when it airs on TBS but Zelda: OOT made all it could a long time ago and so a new Zelda (or a remake/rerelease) is needed to continue the revenue stream. So sequels and remakes/rereleases are far more common in video games because it's the only way for the company's library to keep making money.


There are also things such as licenced products to consider. There are so many alternative revenue streams for a film compared to a game, which is why game companies are trying to find a way to force DLC etc on you.

I would think licensed products are just as lucrative a market for games as they are movies. If Nintendo wanted to market Zelda action figures I'm sure they'd sell decently enough.


You missed boatofcar's point. It's all about balancing profits against a reasonable shelf price: Consumers have price expectations (as this thread amply demonstrates), and the immediate concern in a DVD release is making a profit on that enterprise by itself, without worrying about previous releases as those are water under the bridge. So what if you'd need to sell each copy at $100 to make a profit on the original release? That's already been written off by the film studios.

Actually, that was my point, too. Mainly that it's pretty clear that a film's performance at the box office is somewhat removed from it's performance on DVD. So the comparatively low DVD price is not necessarily dependent on the fact that films often get shown in theaters first. The price is probably based on, as you said, what the consumers are willing to pay which is a little harder to measure as we're no longer talking raw math but rather some kind of subjective mindset of consumers. And that's something that can change over time. It's pretty obvious that consumers expectations for game prices is no longer at the $80 mark that it once was. They expect games to cost less. More people also buy games now than ever before. That probably contributes to the shift.

My point can be reduced to this: When talking about game prices, or any prices for that matter, it's not always so easy as saying "well, X costs a lot to make" which is, more often than not, the knee jerk response.

[duffmanth]

Oh fuck I can remember those days. I still remember paying around $80 CDN for TMNT II on the old NES. I saved like 2 months worth of allowance for that, lol!

Going back to some previous points, I think there should be some kind of grading and pricing system for games. Top tier AAA games like Metal Gear and Final Fantasy should obviously be at the top, and your shit sports and movie based games should be at the bottom. It should be like buying a pair of sneakers (which are grossly over priced as well) Metal Gear = Air Jordans, Leisure Suit Larry = shoes from your local discount department store.

[The 1 2 P]

I remember those days quite clearly and $60 sounds like goddamn double coupon day at the dollar store compared to that.

If that sounds like double coupon day than you should go back and demand quadruple coupon day. $60 is not a deal in today's economy.



I've never seen so many gamers who hate overpaying when buying games....

Fixed for ya;)

Back on topic, I agree that most games these days aren't worth the price of admission. The last time I bought a game on release day for full retail price was Halo 2 back in 2004. Of course that was absolutely worth it considering I still play it today(online multiplayer FTW). For my current gen systems(360 and Wii) I get all my games from clearance sales. I haven't paid more than $25 for a current gen game(Halo 3...also worth it) and the majority of my games have been bought for $5-10 each. I also feel that the $60 price tag is ridiculously high and thats why I vote against it with my wallet.

[boatofcar]

Hell we paid close to $100 back in the VCS days! Of course that wasn't me, that was my dad :)


If you paid $100 for any VCS game, somebody was ripping you off. No VCS games had MSRP's that high.

[Jorpho]

The last time I bought a game on release day for full retail price was Halo 2 back in 2004. Of course that was absolutely worth it considering I still play it today(online multiplayer FTW).Really? Hasn't the online community moved on to Halo 3?

[boatofcar]

Really? Hasn't the online community moved on to Halo 3?

Most have, but there will always be people who got so good at Halo 2 that they refuse to move on and lose their 133t sk1lz.

[The 1 2 P]

Really? Hasn't the online community moved on to Halo 3?

There are still many active communities for original Xbox games. Halo 2, Burnout 3, Star Wars: Jedi Knight Jedi Academy and many others still have people playing them on live. Plus, many Halo players go back to Halo 2 because Team Swat is still free. Bungie keeps making every new map pack a requirement for Swat and that turns many people off(myself included) and forces us to go back to Halo 2 to play Swat until they drop the price of the new maps in Halo 3.


Most have, but there will always be people who got so good at Halo 2 that they refuse to move on and lose their 133t sk1lz.

Or some of them just haven't made the jump to 360 yet. I just recently made it this February so theres several others who are still waiting as well.

[Sonicwolf]

One game I found to be terribly priced for the value of the game itself was Star Trek Legacy. Aside from the fact that the game box lies and says 2 players when there is no single console multiplayer, the game itself is easily beaten in a few hours.

[Nature Boy]

If you paid $100 for any VCS game, somebody was ripping you off. No VCS games had MSRP's that high.

I *did* say 'close to'...