Why do people still bitch about the price of games?!

[duffmanth]

I know this topic has probably come up on here before, but can someone please explain why people continue to do this?! I was in a few a game stores today and overheard a few people complaining how expensive games and consoles are and it drives me crazy sometimes. This wasn't an isolated incident either. Video gaming has always been and probably will always be an expensive hobby. I can remember paying $70-80 CDN (probably $50 US) for NES games back when I growing up in the late eighties and early nineties, and also remember most consoles being $200 CDN minimum.

I don't want to sound like an elitist prick, but gaming is a pricey hobby, if you can't afford it, than you should probably think twice about getting into it.

[joshnickerson]

Are you new to humanity or something? Next to procreation and killing each other, bitching about trivial things is what we do best.

[JSoup]

Remember the years when Nintendo put out quality Gameboy titles at $19 new, right on release day?

I sure do.

[Bojay1997]

I know this topic has probably come up on here before, but can someone please explain why people continue to do this?! I was in a few a game stores today and overheard a few people complaining how expensive games and consoles are and it drives me crazy sometimes. This wasn't an isolated incident either. Video gaming has always been and probably will always be an expensive hobby. I can remember paying $70-80 CDN (probably $50 US) for NES games back when I growing up in the late eighties and early nineties, and also remember most consoles being $200 CDN minimum.

I don't want to sound like an elitist prick, but gaming is a pricey hobby, if you can't afford it, than you should probably think twice about getting into it.

Dude, as someone who own lots and lots of games, I think they are generally too expensive. In fact, I only buy new, but I typically don't buy games until they are a few months old and on average I try to pay $20 or less. There are entire websites like Cheapassgamer dedicated to the thousands of us who feel the same way. There's nothing wrong with looking for bargains. In fact, my favorite saying to my nephew when he points at games in Toys R Us or other stores at full MSRP is would you rather have me buy you that one game or three slightly older games and eventually own every game for that system? He still wants whatever he points to, but at some point he will probably be persuaded by the math.

[ncman071]

i understand why people don't want to pay $60 for a game but at the same time i remember paying $70 for MK 2 for the snes when i was 14. as a whole it seems that systems and games are not much more expensive than they've been since atari days. i remember vividly when the 3DO came out for $699.

[Clownzilla]

I know this topic has probably come up on here before, but can someone please explain why people continue to do this?! I was in a few a game stores today and overheard a few people complaining how expensive games and consoles are and it drives me crazy sometimes. This wasn't an isolated incident either. Video gaming has always been and probably will always be an expensive hobby. I can remember paying $70-80 CDN (probably $50 US) for NES games back when I growing up in the late eighties and early nineties, and also remember most consoles being $200 CDN minimum.

I don't want to sound like an elitist prick, but gaming is a pricey hobby, if you can't afford it, than you should probably think twice about getting into it.

In the 80's and 90's the expensive games were REALLY good games (Dragon Warrior IV, Super Street Fighter, etc.) and on top of that they were complete. Today, almost every game is expensive no matter what the quality (with a few exceptions). On top of that the games today are made incomplete so they can keep getting money from us for the next 2 years through micro-transactions. This makes many games WAY more expensive than games in the 80's and 90's.

[BHvrd]

Are you new to humanity or something? Next to procreation and killing each other, bitching about trivial things is what we do best.

I nominate this for Quote of the Year. :D

Honestly though I agree that gaming has always been an expensive hobby. I also remember paying around $70 for games on the NES. Now Milk and Gas prices, these we need to discuss.

[VG_Maniac]

I remember buying Turok for the N64 back in 1997 for $74.99.

[Gameguy]

Games are still expensive, but I really don't understand why they aren't cheaper now. Pretty much every other type of electronic device has gone down in price as technology improved, yet video games have remained the same. You can get a new basic computer for $500, yet I remember around 10-15 years ago $3000 was an average starting point for a decent system. When calculators first came out they cost hundreds, now you can get simple ones at a dollar store. Even cell phones are being given away as long as you agree to a contract. You can get brand new DVDs for around $5 and up at Wal-mart(I just was there and Borat is priced under $4), I don't remember VHS tapes being sold for that low unless they were on clearance. It seems all games are at least $20 when released, and are only cheaper when being cleared out.

And games used to be all cartridges, those were expensive to make back then especially with all the inserts included with them. Now everything is a disc which should be really cheap to mass produce, and there's really few inserts being included with games, no posters or hint books for the most part.

Keep in mind that people have more expenses now than in the past, in the Genesis days we(at least my family) didn't have the internet, cell phones, MP3 players(I still don't), digital cameras, PDAs/Blackberrys, etc. All that costs money, and more bills each month means less cash for games. How much do cell phones and internet access cost each month? That should be enough for at least a new release each month.

For one last point, people expect things to be cheaper now. People are used to the internet now, you can read articles for many subjects so there's no need to buy magazines or newspapers and you can get music/TV shows/movies for free(though it's not all ethical). And there's emulation, lots of people can get entire libraries of old games for free, so they aren't as willing to pay too much for newer games.

[heybtbm]

I don't want to sound like an elitist prick

Too late.

[TheRealist50]

I remember I bought Eternal Champions for the genesis for around 70-80 dollars. People want everything for nothing, that is how it goes. Better get used to it now or it will drive you nuts.

[guitargary75]

Are you new to humanity or something? Next to procreation and killing each other, bitching about trivial things is what we do best.

Agree!

[Dangerboy]

It's easy - back in the day you were paying for the cost of the ROM chips.

Now a days you're paying for the insane amount of people it takes to make a game, plus the years of dev time.

And no one mentioned Phantasy Star II at $100 launch day? :)

[j_factor]

I remember Alien Front Online costing $30 at release, having free online play, and being packaged with a microphone. Today $30 will get you the Wii Speak alone, or a year of online play on the 360 if you get a good deal, or a PS3 headset. It will not even get you a new-release console game, apart from some budget Wii games.

Games were only more expensive on cartridges. Even floppy disks were $30 max.

[Bojay1997]

I remember Alien Front Online costing $30 at release, having free online play, and being packaged with a microphone. Today $30 will get you the Wii Speak alone, or a year of online play on the 360 if you get a good deal, or a PS3 headset. It will not even get you a new-release console game, apart from some budget Wii games.

Games were only more expensive on cartridges. Even floppy disks were $30 max.

In defense of more expensive games, Alien Front didn't exactly take a huge amount of time or resources to develop. It's a fairly basic multi-player FPS. Also, the DC microphone wasn't exactly a complex piece of gear that had a huge amount of value. There are actually a lot of similar new games that come out in the $20-$30 range like Raiden Fighters Aces, etc...

[Kid Ice]

My philosophy:

A good game you're going to play for more than 10 hours is worth at least 100 bucks.

Everything else is worthless.

95% of games fit into category 2.

[duffmanth]

Oh I can remember some real pieces of shit going for $70-80 back in the day.

[The 1 2 P]

Everytime these topics come up people love bringing up how much certain games for the Snes and N64 cost($70 and up for some of them). I have been gaming since the Atari 2600 and for those $70 and up games, I passed them up. I have them today but I paid way less than what some people paid for them. And to that point, I still think that games are too expensive today.

I realize where some of those cost are coming, but like Gameguy said, video games are one of the only electronic consumer goods whos price continues to go up each generation(not every single gen but it never goes down). Dvds were expensive when they first were released(like blurays are today) but they eventually came down. During their heyday, vhs tapes were an average of $80-100 each....but they eventually settled to the $20-30 range. I don't remember how expensive cds were when they first came out, but they are definitely cheaper now.

I suppose the next argument is that movies(vhs, dvds, blurays) and music(records, tapes, cds) have always had more ways to recoup their cost back than video games do(movies have theatrical releases, pay per views, tv rights, dvd/bluray releases; music has cds/records, digital downloads and concert receipts). But video games are starting to get more ways to recoup their cost too, thanks to digital downloads. However, there are many times where they try to be too damn greedy with these(Microsoft releasing their Xbox originals for $20 each, Nintendo rereleasing several of it's old Nes classics on GBA for $30 each, Oblivions horse armor, etc). I'm not sure where the healthy balance is but for my money: $60 is too much for new releases and $70 will be too much when they try to make that the standard in the next generation or two.

[duffmanth]

Yeah but video game consoles don't go out of date in 6 months or a year like computers and TV's. Most game consoles will stay current for at least 5 years most of the time.

[duffmanth]

I'm not trying to sound like an ass, it's just that every time I walk into a gaming store or electronics store I hear at least one person complaining about the price of consoles and games and it just gets annoying after a while, but yet they still want to play them.

[otaku]

I remember carts being very expensive so we're doing better now sure but the games are rather expensive to me anything over 50 sucks and 40 would be even better (especially for wii games) great thing is though many games eventually end up cheap from not selling, from people trading, from rentals being sold etc so you can always pick them up then.

[aclbandit]

I nominate this for Quote of the Year. :D

I second this nomination.

[Bojay1997]

Yeah but video game consoles don't go out of date in 6 months or a year like computers and TV's. Most game consoles will stay current for at least 5 years most of the time.

TVs? Unless you are buying crap quality TVs, there is no real reason to replace your TV more often than every 8-10 years or longer. Yes, with the move to HD, a lot of us have bought new TVs in the past few years, but as long as you own a 1080P TV, there shouldn't be a reason to upgrade for a very long time. Similarly, I still use a Mac G4 from 2000 and with some very minor upgrades, I can still word process, play games, surf the Internet, etc...I bought my parents a mid-range PC four years ago and it still plays most games with the exception of some of the higher end FPS games. Video game consoles go out of date much more often than TVs, more often than DVD players and just slightly less frequently than PCs.

[otaku]

bojay is right I've never had a tv last less than 7 years and that was a big cheap hitachi projection tv which saw a ton of use in that 7 years. I also still have some 14-20 year old sets laying around.

[crom]

you know what? it isnt something new so ppl should stop bitching about prices...

we live in a world of being able to download demos on xbox live or psn, this service alone has saved me tons of money...

forget renting games, nowadays blockbuster might as well be called block hustler, $8-$10 to rent? thats insane...

so save your money, when a really good game comes out buy it, untill then keep playing the games you got...

not everything goes down in price over time... not everything can be made by child labour in chinese sweat shops...

and if your happy that you can buy a mp3 player for $15 or dvd player for $25 or a computer for $100 then you must not realize why the economy is falling apart....

[j_factor]

In defense of more expensive games, Alien Front didn't exactly take a huge amount of time or resources to develop. It's a fairly basic multi-player FPS.

Right. My point is, in general, games that "didn't exactly take a huge amount of time or resources to develop" are still $60. An Alien Front Online with prettied-up graphics and Xbox Live support would sell for $60 today. And why are yearly sports games $60? I thought they were too expensive when they were ten bucks less than that.


Also, the DC microphone wasn't exactly a complex piece of gear that had a huge amount of value.

Neither are the peripherals that I compared it to.


There are actually a lot of similar new games that come out in the $20-$30 range like Raiden Fighters Aces, etc...

Raiden Fighters Aces is a compilation of three old shmups. I fail to see how it's relevant.

[chrisbid]

It's easy - back in the day you were paying for the cost of the ROM chips.

Now a days you're paying for the insane amount of people it takes to make a game, plus the years of dev time.

And no one mentioned Phantasy Star II at $100 launch day? :)

dont forget insane licensing fees from console makers, in a desperate attempt to plug their money-sucking loss-leading hardware

thats where the extra ten dollars for current gen games are going to

[Fuyukaze]

I think gaming is only expensive if you take the mentality that you must own every system at launch and every game bought has to be day one. Gaming can and is a cheap hobby as long as you dont mind buying games more then 6 months old that are used. Around a month ago, I walked into a Play-n-Trade and bought 13 games for around $70. Sure, I got SNES, NES, Genesis, PS1, DS, and PSP games but the point is I got 13 for the price of one of the newer games. Then again, last Thursday I went into a Gamecrazy and bought 4 games for $50ish. Got 3 PS2 games and one new DS title I'd pre-ordered.

Point is, gaming doesnt have to be expensive as long as your willing to be patient.

[GarrettCRW]

People are still bitching about the price of games because they don't have any money with which to buy the stuff they want. A lot of people don't even have the money to buy the stuff they need.

[otaku]

and I'll point out as I have to family and friends that even when buying everything new and right away this hobby is still cheaper than lets say watching a couple movies at the theatre or buying a couple dvds or eating out or.... you get more enjoyment in terms of hours out of a game generally and the prices even knew trust me it makes sense! Books its the same thing get yourself a book for 20 bucks or less and your busy for 20 hours. Go to the theatre for 2 hours at 10 bucks...plus expensive snacks and...

[duffmanth]

I'm not saying you have to replace your TV and computer every 6 months to a year, the manufacturers do that for you. For example you buy a 40" HDTV with one HDMI port that does 1080i, a year later they've replaced it with one that does 1080p with 4 HDMI ports. Gaming consoles only get updated and replaced every 5 years or so, so from this perspective I would say they're a pretty good investment.

[ScourDX]

People bitch just about anything. People bitch about PSP Go priced at $250 and complain how expensive Nintendo 1st party title are. The problem isn't about people, it is their inability to shop. Most gamers just go out and spend full price instead of waiting till the game drop in price or look for alternative way to buy cheap game via Craigslist or ebay.

[Overbite]

I think a prettied up alien front would sell for 1200 microsoft points

[Dastardly Dylan]

Cause people don't make shit at there jobs.

Sooner then we know, video games will go up to $80.

[Battlehork]

Right. My point is, in general, games that "didn't exactly take a huge amount of time or resources to develop" are still $60. An Alien Front Online with prettied-up graphics and Xbox Live support would sell for $60 today. And why are yearly sports games $60? I thought they were too expensive when they were ten bucks less than that.


Didn't Alien Front come out after the DC was pretty much already dead?

[duffmanth]

Some game developers will whip together any piece of shit game in a month and send it to retail and charge $60 for it, but these companies aren't doing anything to help their reputation. Companies like Midway, Acclaim, and Infogrames are where they are b/c they have consistently put out shit games. Developers and publishers that think they can just pump out any piece of shit game and charge $60 or more for it are going to have their reputation and credibility crushed eventually just like the companies mentioned before.

I agree with you that not only sports games, but movie based games, shovelware games, and most games in general are worth maybe $30 at best. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, probably less than 5% of games out there are worth $60 or more. All of these publishers and developers are greedy pricks that think the gaming public will pay $60 for anything they put out, but a lot of the time they're not doing themselves any favors by pricing shit games at $60 or more.

[kupomogli]

how expensive Nintendo 1st party titles are.

Because Nintendo rarely ever drops their price. The only time I've seen a price drop is about 5+ years when Metroid Prime and Super Smash Bros Melee actually had a price drop for the Gamecube. Sure the Wii may be cheap, but you're getting raped in the ass when it comes to pricing if you want a AAA title that is first party(makes the Wii the most expensive system in the long run.) None of the first party titles for DS or Wii so far have got a price drop before going out of print(and obviously meaning no price drop.)

3 years old. No price drop.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51AHsY7zvEL._SL160_AA115_.jpg

Almost 2 years old. No price drop.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51tPCaGMWCL._SL160_AA115_.jpg

2 years old. No price drop.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51QgCA4XxTL._SL160_AA115_.jpg

Almost 5 years old AND A PORT. No price drop.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51mBP7%2BynaL._SL160_AA115_.jpg

--
Microsoft and Sony who actually drop their first party title prices. PSP titles usually drop to 19.99 within a year unless they start at 19.99.

Almost two years old. 20 dollar price drop.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51atrAxEVlL._SL160_AA115_.jpg

Less than a year old. 20 dollar price drop.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51qRZ1TmsxL._SL160_AA115_.jpg

Almost three years old. 30 dollar price drop.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61q5E1XhZJL._SL160_AA115_.jpg

Almost three years old. 30 dollar price drop.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61CWyjU6ZOL._SL160_AA115_.jpg

Almost two years old. 30 dollar price drop.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51RjmdON1TL._SL160_AA115_.jpg

One year old. 20 dollar price drop. Only 19.99(or less if you shop at Amazon.)
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51V0XlvYb2L._SL160_AA115_.jpg

[Baloo]

IMO, people need to learn how to shop. The same people who bitch about high prices for new games are the same people who bitch about eBay inflation. Everybody's out to make a profit. You don't like a price? Go somewhere else, somewhere, somebody HAS to have it for cheaper. You've gotta go to flea markets, thrift stores, craigslist, friends, relatives, someone has to have the game and is willing to get rid of it for a fair price.

Video games cost money, because people of course want to make a profit. A new game probably costs Gamestop $45ish dollars to buy, so they're going to try and make as much money as they can while still putting it at a price that people will be willing to buy it at. Someone at a flea market however probably bought the game you are looking for, didn't like it, and now they're trying to recoup some of their losses. People look at prices too much at the buyer's point of view, and not as much in the sellers' point of view. If a seller can't turn a good enough profit, then they can't stay in business.

Video games have cost $50-70 at release since NES days, and nobody bitched and complained then, why are you complaining now? Today people are spend-happy. Games back then cost more to secure licensing on, and to create. Now, take Shenmue for instance. They decided to spend a ton of money in development, which is where the cost comes from, reguardless of the cheapness of CD technology. The newest technology is going to cost the most money. And since everybody wants the newest technology, and don't want their $60 games to look like NES games today, they have to charge something.

In short, if you don't like a price for something, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

[Dr. Dib]

I think it's pretty obvious why Nintendo doesn't do price drops. For the most part, people still buy their older games. Most of their price drops for first party games for GCN had to do with their Player's Choice program which seems to be completely absent for Wii. Then again, when you're printing money you really don't need the program.

I was upset by the lack of price drops when I was thinking about replacing games I lost in a flood (all DS games). Didn't really feel like paying full price though for games I already beat and would probably not play. Even if I am keeping my Phantom Hourglass DS bundle incomplete...

[Bojay1997]

Some game developers will whip together any piece of shit game in a month and send it to retail and charge $60 for it, but these companies aren't doing anything to help their reputation. Companies like Midway, Acclaim, and Infogrames are where they are b/c they have consistently put out shit games. Developers and publishers that think they can just pump out any piece of shit game and charge $60 or more for it are going to have their reputation and credibility crushed eventually just like the companies mentioned before.

I agree with you that not only sports games, but movie based games, shovelware games, and most games in general are worth maybe $30 at best. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, probably less than 5% of games out there are worth $60 or more. All of these publishers and developers are greedy pricks that think the gaming public will pay $60 for anything they put out, but a lot of the time they're not doing themselves any favors by pricing shit games at $60 or more.

If this was the 8-bit, 16-bit or maybe even 32-bit days, I might agree with you, but there are smaller and smaller numbers of truly crap games being released on the major consoles nowadays. It's just too expensive to develop and market games and unless something is going to sell reasonably well, a developer and publisher are not going to put the resources into it. That's not to say that there aren't games that are not fun to play or fail to meet their potential being released, but it has been a very long time since I have seen a truly crappy game released at $60.

[ScourDX]

Because Nintendo rarely ever drops their price. The only time I've seen a price drop is about 5+ years when Metroid Prime and Super Smash Bros Melee actually had a price drop for the Gamecube. Sure the Wii may be cheap, but you're getting raped in the ass when it comes to pricing if you want a AAA title that is first party(makes the Wii the most expensive system in the long run.) None of the first party titles for DS or Wii so far have got a price drop before going out of print(and obviously meaning no price drop.

Because Nintendo is winning the console and handheld system. If Nintendo is losing the console and handheld war, you will expect price drop from 1st party game and their system. Gamecube is a prime example of their 1st party titles drop below $20. They have a lot of player's choice title than any other system they put out.

[Bojay1997]

Right. My point is, in general, games that "didn't exactly take a huge amount of time or resources to develop" are still $60. An Alien Front Online with prettied-up graphics and Xbox Live support would sell for $60 today. And why are yearly sports games $60? I thought they were too expensive when they were ten bucks less than that.



Neither are the peripherals that I compared it to.



Raiden Fighters Aces is a compilation of three old shmups. I fail to see how it's relevant.

Can you provide some examples of recent games that are still selling for $60 that didn't take much time or resources to develop? Even Madden takes significant work and a huge team every year to make the minor improvements it gets. I also disagree with your earlier contention that disk based games were only $30. I bought lots of games for my Apple II and Commodore 64 that were as much as $50 at release by companies like Origin and Electronic Arts. Even Infocom games were $40 at release. Since that was $50 in 1985 dollars, that's about $98 today with inflation per the government's inflation calculator.

[The 1 2 P]

IMO, people need to learn how to shop. The same people who bitch about high prices for new games are the same people who bitch about eBay inflation. Everybody's out to make a profit. You don't like a price? Go somewhere else, somewhere, somebody HAS to have it for cheaper. You've gotta go to flea markets, thrift stores, craigslist, friends, relatives, someone has to have the game and is willing to get rid of it for a fair price.

I must be an anomaly because I bitch about the high price of new releases but I still shop around for bargins. Halo 2 was the last game I got on release day(and it was well worth the 5+ years I've been playing it) and the main reason for this is because new release titles cost too damn much. Thats why I do shop around and compare prices online, ebay, craigs list, Goodwill, etc. Although I get some really great deals from shopping around, I(and I'm guessing the majority of other people who are bitching about the high prices) would like to get more games on release day. That way I could take part in fuller online multiplayer sessions. By the time the game is affordable enough for me to purchase, many times the online lobbies are empty fields full of tumbleweed. But I suppose thats the trade off for getting a cheaper game. It would be nice to have it both ways though.

[duffmanth]

I would agree that there's less shitty games these days, but there's still a lot out there. A few shining examples are Haze and Mercenaries 2. The only games that I will pay $60 for on launch day are truly epic games like Metal Gear, God of War, Gran Turismo, Final Fantasy, and Halo etc.

[kupomogli]

Because Nintendo is winning the console and handheld system. If Nintendo is losing the console and handheld war, you will expect price drop from 1st party game and their system. Gamecube is a prime example of their 1st party titles drop below $20. They have a lot of player's choice title than any other system they put out.

Wrong.

Take a look at Metroid Prime Hunters, Pokemon Dash, and Kirby Canvas Curse, all of which sold terrible. Doesn't it seem a little odd to you that the games that don't sell well just phase out and we don't see anything of a price drop? How about Mario Party 4, 5, 6, and 7 which also discontinued at full price for the Gamecube(it was a crappy selling system yet they never got a price drop.) The only time Nintendo's first party titles on the Gamecube went below 49.99 is if they were out 3+ years.

Any other company would reduce prices to sell more copies. But not Nintendo. They're against giving anything towards the fans unless they're getting every damn cent they possibly can. That's why all those games discontinued at full price.

Your logic also fails miserably. If you look at a game like Super Mario Galaxy(eight million sales) and then look at Halo 3(10 million sales,) both of which were released at the same time. There's also Mario 64 DS sold about eight million and it was released three years before Halo 3 and still hasn't received a price drop.

According to your logic, the games that are selling the best should stay high priced. What's Nintendo's excuse on not dropping prices when Microsoft has already dropped 20 on a game that's selling well over the amount of their other titles that have been out the same amount of time or longer? "Greed" maybe? But everyone is greedy and companies are out to make money. Nintendo makes it plain obvious, but only a fanboy who licks Nintendo's ass will stand up to defend them when faced with facts. Nintendo has alot of shitty fanboys that praise the company for their terrible fucking sales tactics that have been going on since the NES.

Then Nintendo fanboys know how Nintendo never drops price, but then bash Sony for pricing the PSP Go at 250. A little hypocritical aren't we? Sure it's a bullshit price, but then again, so is the Wii and just about every Wii game released, even most first party games(don't see them bitching how they've never seen a Mario game go under MSRP do you?) However, it's a new system and as we all know, new systems are always priced higher regardless of if they're worth it or not, only to be dropped in price shortly after. If you're a Sony or Microsoft fanboy then bash the PSP Go's overpriced bullshit, but if you're a hypocritical Nintendo fanboy(after 2006) go -beeep- yourself. *edited*

Sales are a different story. At Amazon you'll find all first party Sony PS3 titles 10 dollars less than you'll find in all retail stores. Sales usually come and go quick to where you may not even realize they're there before they're gone. It's extremely rare that the game company is pushing the sale rather than the store(Amazon, Target, Walmart, etc.) If you find it for cheap for a single day then you should thank the store that did the sale, not Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo, because they did the sale for nothing more than to get you to rush over there and pick it up in hopes that you'd have a couple other impulse buys.

[The 1 2 P]

Someone is cranky:above me: But I agree with you and you also make some good examples with your previous post with the pictures. Nintendo sure is greedy when it comes to showing the love with price drops. Metroid Prime 3 is still at full price($49.00) and it's been out for atleast a year. The big N could definitely learn a lesson from Microsoft and Sony about software price drops.

[Baloo]

Wrong.

Take a look at Metroid Prime Hunters, Pokemon Dash, and Kirby Canvas Curse, all of which sold terrible. Doesn't it seem a little odd to you that the games that don't sell well just phase out and we don't see anything of a price drop? How about Mario Party 4, 5, 6, and 7 which also discontinued at full price for the Gamecube(it was a crappy selling system yet they never got a price drop.)


Nintendo doesn't do price drops, instead they just flat out discontinue the games that don't sell well, especially those early DS games. Notice how NONE of those games are in production anymore? They just discontinued them and that was that. Super Mario 64 DS sold very well though, so they're going to try to make as much money as they can to make up for those other games not selling as well. They wont price drop games and keep making them so they can sit on shelves, they're just going to stop making them, and keep making the ones that sell really well, like Super Mario 64 DS, New Super Mario Bros., Mario Kart DS, and Pokemon games.

After all, if you have something that you know will sell for $35 on a regular basis, why would you settle for $25?

[kupomogli]

After all, if you have something that you know will sell for $35 on a regular basis, why would you settle for $25?

How about this one? If you have a set of games you can just drop price and sell for 20 instead of 35, would you like to make the profit on them and push as little as you can out?

If they're not selling that often, you don't have to ship a ton. Atleast cater to your fans who will like the company more, meaning they'll be more loyal to you. Nintendo fans have some bullshit undying loyalty for a company who doesn't give two shits about them when it comes out to all the sales tactics they pull(they must like paying 50 for every first party game.)

[Bojay1997]

How about this one? If you have a set of games you can just drop price and sell for 20 instead of 35, would you like to make the profit on them and push as little as you can out?

If they're not selling that often, you don't have to ship a ton. Atleast cater to your fans who will like the company more, meaning they'll be more loyal to you. Nintendo fans have some bullshit undying loyalty for a company who doesn't give two shits about them when it comes out to all the sales tactics they pull(they must like paying 50 for every first party game.)

Seriously dude, there is not a company on this planet that cares about you or anyone else. Companies are created solely for the purpose of making money. From a pure business standpoint, if I can release a fairly limited number of first party games every year, maintain a $50 price point on them for multiple years and not get stuck with excess inventory, I will maximize my profit. Remember, for every $20 clearance game that gets sold on other systems, that reduces the ability of the consumers who paid the $20 for the game to buy the $60 games. It also gives people hesitation to buy the full price games if they know the price will drop within a few months. Why would I want to encourage people to spend far less on more games which will in turn hurt full price new release sales where I really make my money? I agree that it sucks for the consumer and for fans, but it's actually a brilliant business strategy.

[chrisbid]

The big N could definitely learn a lesson from Microsoft and Sony about software price drops.


MS and Sony could learn from the big N on how to make a profit in the video game business

[The 1 2 P]

MS and Sony could learn from the big N on how to make a profit in the video game business

Thats exactly what Project Natal and the "wand" are suppose to be doing when they are launched next year. Furthermore, despite both of them losing money on hardware, they still care enough to have healthy price drops for people who don't want to(or can't afford to) pay full retail on software. This especially makes sense once the game has been out for a year or more. But apparently Nintendo never got the memo.

[Mimi Nakamura]

Games are still expensive, but I really don't understand why they aren't cheaper now. Pretty much every other type of electronic device has gone down in price as technology improved, yet video games have remained the same. You can get a new basic computer for $500, yet I remember around 10-15 years ago $3000 was an average starting point for a decent system. When calculators first came out they cost hundreds, now you can get simple ones at a dollar store. Even cell phones are being given away as long as you agree to a contract. You can get brand new DVDs for around $5 and up at Wal-mart(I just was there and Borat is priced under $4), I don't remember VHS tapes being sold for that low unless they were on clearance. It seems all games are at least $20 when released, and are only cheaper when being cleared out.

And games used to be all cartridges, those were expensive to make back then especially with all the inserts included with them. Now everything is a disc which should be really cheap to mass produce, and there's really few inserts being included with games, no posters or hint books for the most part.

Keep in mind that people have more expenses now than in the past, in the Genesis days we(at least my family) didn't have the internet, cell phones, MP3 players(I still don't), digital cameras, PDAs/Blackberrys, etc. All that costs money, and more bills each month means less cash for games. How much do cell phones and internet access cost each month? That should be enough for at least a new release each month.

For one last point, people expect things to be cheaper now. People are used to the internet now, you can read articles for many subjects so there's no need to buy magazines or newspapers and you can get music/TV shows/movies for free(though it's not all ethical). And there's emulation, lots of people can get entire libraries of old games for free, so they aren't as willing to pay too much for newer games.

Because production costs are higher. Simple.

[j_factor]

Can you provide some examples of recent games that are still selling for $60 that didn't take much time or resources to develop? Even Madden takes significant work and a huge team every year to make the minor improvements it gets.

Madden may take "significant work", but certainly not on the same level as games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Prototype, Mirror's Edge, Uncharted, etc. It wasn't that long ago that they sold it for $30, remember? Obviously it doesn't take twice the development cost today. And although the 360 and PS3 have higher development costs due to the higher level of graphics, once the engine had already been established on those platforms, I'd bet the yearly cost to develop Madden really hasn't gone up that much compared to on PS2/Xbox.

They charge $60 because they can. They charge what the market will bear. It's not tied to development costs and it never has been, with the exception of some budget titles.

I'll give you another example, since you asked. Guitar Hero: Smash Hits. All they did was throw together some previously-used songs and add full band support. Certainly that wasn't sucking up the resources.


I also disagree with your earlier contention that disk based games were only $30. I bought lots of games for my Apple II and Commodore 64 that were as much as $50 at release by companies like Origin and Electronic Arts. Even Infocom games were $40 at release. Since that was $50 in 1985 dollars, that's about $98 today with inflation per the government's inflation calculator.

That's before my time (and I never had an Apple II), so I wouldn't know about that. Perhaps really old disk games cost more. Also, weren't Origin games usually packaged with a map, and extra booklets and stuff, making them more expensive than most? I tried googling but I couldn't find any info on old game prices anywhere. I remember paying $30 (sometimes $40) for Amiga games, and $40-50 for CD-ROM games.

[ScourDX]

Wrong.

What do you mean wrong. If company isn't winning, do you think they will continue to sell it for high price. I think not. No company in this world will not drop their price if their product isn't doing so well.



Take a look at Metroid Prime Hunters, Pokemon Dash, and Kirby Canvas Curse, all of which sold terrible.

What system is it on? DS. Is the system doing badly? Nope. DS out shine PSP currently and Nintendo has the right to not drop their price.


Doesn't it seem a little odd to you that the games that don't sell well just phase out and we don't see anything of a price drop? How about Mario Party 4, 5, 6, and 7 which also discontinued at full price for the Gamecube(it was a crappy selling system yet they never got a price drop.) The only time Nintendo's first party titles on the Gamecube went below 49.99 is if they were out 3+ years.

Nintendo knows it's market. Mario Party are multiplayers and they know it will sell better than one player game. They kept their price high because they know kids and parents will buy games for the fun of whole family. Other titles such as Mario Kart Double Dash & Smash Bros. Melee did hit the Player's choice status, but Nintendo still keep it price at $39.99. At the time, Nintendo was losing their battle with Gamecube and dominate in the handheld business. No one even challenge Nintendo in handheld business at that time. This is what kept Nintendo from going under. If Nintendo failed in both system, you will expect them to panic and start lowering their prices.



Your logic also fails miserably. If you look at a game like Super Mario Galaxy(eight million sales) and then look at Halo 3(10 million sales,) both of which were released at the same time. There's also Mario 64 DS sold about eight million and it was released three years before Halo 3 and still hasn't received a price drop.

Is Nintendo Wii console doing badly? NOPE. They are still No.1 so my logic didn't fail miserably. As long as Nintendo is No. 1, they know fans will buy their games. Wii has so many shovelware and bad games. Nintendo know this and they still charge for full price because consumers has no other good 3rd party games.


According to your logic, the games that are selling the best should stay high priced.

I didn't say that. I said if Nintendo is No. 1, they will not drop their price because they know people will buy their product.



What's Nintendo's excuse on not dropping prices when Microsoft has already dropped 20 on a game that's selling well over the amount of their other titles that have been out the same amount of time or longer? "Greed" maybe? But everyone is greedy and companies are out to make money. Nintendo makes it plain obvious, but only a fanboy who licks Nintendo's ass will stand up to defend them when faced with facts. Nintendo has alot of shitty fanboys that praise the company for their terrible fucking sales tactics that have been going on since the NES.

Everybody knows Nintendo is a greedy company. They wouldn't even reward their own fans for continue supporting their company. Do people still buy their games - yes. As long as Nintendo dominate the videogame scene, they will never lower their price.


However, it's a new system and as we all know, new systems are always priced higher regardless of if they're worth it or not, only to be dropped in price shortly after. If you're a Sony or Microsoft fanboy then bash the PSP Go's overpriced bullshit, but if you're a hypocritical Nintendo fanboy(after 2006) go -beeep- yourself. *edited*

That is pretty execessive don't you think. You accusing me of being a fanboy?

[Bojay1997]

Madden may take "significant work", but certainly not on the same level as games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Prototype, Mirror's Edge, Uncharted, etc. It wasn't that long ago that they sold it for $30, remember? Obviously it doesn't take twice the development cost today. And although the 360 and PS3 have higher development costs due to the higher level of graphics, once the engine had already been established on those platforms, I'd bet the yearly cost to develop Madden really hasn't gone up that much compared to on PS2/Xbox.

They charge $60 because they can. They charge what the market will bear. It's not tied to development costs and it never has been, with the exception of some budget titles.

I'll give you another example, since you asked. Guitar Hero: Smash Hits. All they did was throw together some previously-used songs and add full band support. Certainly that wasn't sucking up the resources.



That's before my time (and I never had an Apple II), so I wouldn't know about that. Perhaps really old disk games cost more. Also, weren't Origin games usually packaged with a map, and extra booklets and stuff, making them more expensive than most? I tried googling but I couldn't find any info on old game prices anywhere. I remember paying $30 (sometimes $40) for Amiga games, and $40-50 for CD-ROM games.

There are certainly years where Madden goes through relatively minor changes, but every few years there is an entire play mechanic and engine re-do. That's every bit as expensive as developing any other A-list game. I will agree with you that game prices aren't tied precisely with development costs, but there is no disputing that development costs have gone up significantly in the past decade and in relative terms, not even accounting for inflation, game prices have remained around the same as they were in the 80s.

There were Amiga games that sold for $20 or $30, but the A-list games with multiple discs and longer play times always went for $50 and sometimes $60 if it was an Origin or complex RPG game. Also, if you recall, CD-Rom games were considered to be less expensive to press and distribute since they replaced in some cases dozens of 3.5" floppys and cut down on shipping weight. That's why those games often went for $40-$50 which is what they still go for today.

I still agree that $60 is too much for a game and that's why I wait until they hit $20 or less which doesn't take that long nowadays. I do, however, recognize that if everyone waited, there wouldn't be much left of the mainstream games industry since every game would lose money.

[kupomogli]

Is Nintendo Wii console doing badly? NOPE.

Is the 360 selling badly? NOPE, yet the series most everyone recognizes and loves the most on the system gets a 20 dollar price drop even selling much more than Mario on the Wii.

Microsoft is hardly lacking in sales and they still have frequent price drops for all the first party games(note Fable 2 with three million sales, released for less than a year, and already a 20 dollar price drop.)

[koster]

That's before my time (and I never had an Apple II), so I wouldn't know about that. Perhaps really old disk games cost more. Also, weren't Origin games usually packaged with a map, and extra booklets and stuff, making them more expensive than most? I tried googling but I couldn't find any info on old game prices anywhere. I remember paying $30 (sometimes $40) for Amiga games, and $40-50 for CD-ROM games.

The CGW Museum (http://cgw.vintagegaming.org/) has the first 100 issues of Computer Gaming World available for individual download. The issues are complete with ads from mail order companies like Chips & Bits, and Software Specialties. Game reviews often included pricing information (manufacturer's list price), as well.

[duffmanth]

MS and Sony could learn from the big N on how to make a profit in the video game business

Yeah but those big profits that Nintendo is raking in right now is coming at the expense of high quality games. Aside from a handful of 1st party Nintendo games, the rest of the Wii's software lineup is complete shit and it's going to fuck the Wii in the long run b/c people are going to get tired of 1 great game surfacing for the Wii every 6 months.

Nintendo has been the market leader for the last few years now and they're getting fat heads and getting lazy. Their showing at the last few E3's has been fucking pathetic and they better watch themselves, b/c Sony and Microsoft are have got some HUGE games coming in the next 6-10 months, and Nintendo has jackshit aside from a few core 1st party games.

[Gameguy]

Because production costs are higher. Simple.
Are you referring to manufacturing costs or development costs? I doubt that a CD/DVD-ROM based game would be more costly to manufacture than a cartridge/circuit board based game. If it's development costs, they should find a way to cut that down.

[j_factor]

There are certainly years where Madden goes through relatively minor changes, but every few years there is an entire play mechanic and engine re-do. That's every bit as expensive as developing any other A-list game.

But whether it's a "relatively minor" year or one of the "re-do" years is not reflected in pricing. And what about other sports games? I don't know that Tiger Woods has ever had much of an overhaul.


I will agree with you that game prices aren't tied precisely with development costs, but there is no disputing that development costs have gone up significantly in the past decade and in relative terms, not even accounting for inflation, game prices have remained around the same as they were in the 80s.

I wouldn't say that's accurate. If prices were around the same in the 80s, then they went down, and then went back up. Games were cheaper from the mid 90s to the early 2000s.


There were Amiga games that sold for $20 or $30, but the A-list games with multiple discs and longer play times always went for $50 and sometimes $60 if it was an Origin or complex RPG game.

I don't recall ever paying more than $40 for an Amiga game, but I didn't buy huge numbers of them. I asked my cousin in the UK and he said the going price for the more expensive, A-list games was £26.99, which was about forty bucks. Many of the later 8-bit releases were as little as £3.99 (datasette), although they were often crap.


Also, if you recall, CD-Rom games were considered to be less expensive to press and distribute since they replaced in some cases dozens of 3.5" floppys and cut down on shipping weight. That's why those games often went for $40-$50 which is what they still go for today.

We are now paying $60 for a game on a single DVD-ROM. Prior to the launch of the Xbox 360, I never saw a disc game go for more than $50, unless it was on multiple discs (and even then, most multiple disc games were still $50, just a few were more). After the Playstation had been around a few years, they lowered the standard game price to $40. Syphon Filter 2 was $40 on release and it was a full-budget game on two discs.

[Bojay1997]

But whether it's a "relatively minor" year or one of the "re-do" years is not reflected in pricing. And what about other sports games? I don't know that Tiger Woods has ever had much of an overhaul.



I wouldn't say that's accurate. If prices were around the same in the 80s, then they went down, and then went back up. Games were cheaper from the mid 90s to the early 2000s.



I don't recall ever paying more than $40 for an Amiga game, but I didn't buy huge numbers of them. I asked my cousin in the UK and he said the going price for the more expensive, A-list games was £26.99, which was about forty bucks. Many of the later 8-bit releases were as little as £3.99 (datasette), although they were often crap.



We are now paying $60 for a game on a single DVD-ROM. Prior to the launch of the Xbox 360, I never saw a disc game go for more than $50, unless it was on multiple discs (and even then, most multiple disc games were still $50, just a few were more). After the Playstation had been around a few years, they lowered the standard game price to $40. Syphon Filter 2 was $40 on release and it was a full-budget game on two discs.

I will agree with you that sports games seem to be overpriced, although you do have to consider the significant licensing that goes into every edition that is launched. In the early days of disk based sports games, companies would release updated stats discs for $20 or so. I suppose publishers could still do that today, but you're right that they aren't reflecting the annual differences in whether it's an update or a total revamp in pricing right now.

New A-list games have always been $40-$50 whether that was on cartridge, floppy, or CD-Rom, computer or console. There are some games that were a lot more and some that were less. Since I was worried I was not remembering correctly, I actually downloaded some of those Computer Gaming World issues the earlier poster had directed us to. The typical game in the mid-80s had an MSRP of $40 with several of the bigger games like Ultima IV going for $50. As I stated earlier, however, when you factor in inflation and relative income today (i.e. people make close to double the salary for the same jobs today), if games were priced the same way as in the 80s, they would be $80-$90 each. Development teams and development budgets are significantly larger than they were in the 80s and 90s and while increased game sales have offset most of the cost, it hasn't covered it completely on a lot of games.

Basically, games were a lot more expensive in the 80s and 90s and the prices dropped relative to income and inflation in the late 90s and up until the 360 and PS3 pushed the MSRP up to $60. Even at $60, games are still cheaper than they were in the 80s, relative to income and inflation, but I do agree that when you compare them to other entertainment options which didn't exist before, they seem high. Of course, with the exception of Nintendo first party stuff, there really is no reason to ever pay $60 for a game since they all drop to $20 within a year of release anyway.

[Press_Start]

There's no point in comparing sales with Nintendo cause right now the company is in a league of it own. How many companies have their own system and 10 or more recognizable franchises under their belt. Remove the three biggest 1st party games in this generation from each (MS, Sony, and Big N) and Nintendo still has 5 more with just as successful sales numbers.

The biggest key factor in Nintendo's massive appeal with everybody! Sure, MS and Sony supports the 13-30 age demographic consisting of teenagers, college students, and young adults. But Nintendo supports preschoolers, kindergarteners, elementary schoolers, middle schoolers, high schoolers, college students, their parents, their siblings, their cousins, their grandma, their grandpa, their neighbors...everyone! Nintendo realized it couldn't stake a claim on the klondike that MS and Sony built. So by broadening its views with the Wii, the big N hits paydirt with a massive gold mine of nearly limitless growth that dwarfs MS/Sony claim to niche-like proportions.

Sony/MS are learning their target audience has their limits with most of their recent sales from those on the fence due to the price drop. Now, they're trying to get a slice of that delicious pie for themselves. While Nintendo is making hand-over-fist and still going strong for its many, high-quality titles.

Back to the topic of high prices, the video game hobby isn't that expensive by taking advantage of the many deals offered by GameStop, Amazon, and companies like them. If one is smart enough and patient enough, they could make out like a bandit. :lol:

[Bojay1997]

There's no point in comparing sales with Nintendo cause right now the company is in a league of it own. How many companies have their own system and 10 or more recognizable franchises under their belt. Remove the three biggest 1st party games in this generation from each (MS, Sony, and Big N) and Nintendo still has 5 more with just as successful sales numbers.

The biggest key factor in Nintendo's massive appeal with everybody! Sure, MS and Sony supports the 13-30 age demographic consisting of teenagers, college students, and young adults. But Nintendo supports preschoolers, kindergarteners, elementary schoolers, middle schoolers, high schoolers, college students, their parents, their siblings, their cousins, their grandma, their grandpa, their neighbors...everyone! Nintendo realized it couldn't stake a claim on the klondike that MS and Sony built. So by broadening its views with the Wii, the big N hits paydirt with a massive gold mine of nearly limitless growth that dwarfs MS/Sony claim to niche-like proportions.

Sony/MS are learning their target audience has their limits with most of their recent sales from those on the fence due to the price drop. Now, they're trying to get a slice of that delicious pie for themselves. While Nintendo is making hand-over-fist and still going strong for its many, high-quality titles.

Back to the topic of high prices, the video game hobby isn't that expensive by taking advantage of the many deals offered by GameStop, Amazon, and companies like them. If one is smart enough and patient enough, they could make out like a bandit. :lol:

In response to your first question, there are several other companies with lots of franchises including Sega, Sony, and EA. It isn't a question of having the franchises, it a question of selling units. Contrary to your assertions, Nintendo is not actually selling to everyone. They are primarily selling to children under the age of 14 which is the same audience that makes animated movies and family films huge hits at the box office. That audience is often ignored by other companies including Microsoft and Sony and Nintendo had the good sense to cash in on that wide open market.

While Nintendo has done very well, the growth is clearly not limitless. Sales of the Wii in the US and Japan have slowed considerably, dropping over half from this time last year (while PS3 and 360 sales, as well as DS and DSi sales have all grown or stayed constant despite the recession) and more critically, game sales and the attach rate for the console have been fairly poor given the number of systems out there. Heck, the best selling game in May 2009 was a UFC title for the 360 which outsold the number two selling game, Wii Fit by almost 2:1. The number three selling game was EA Sports Active for Wii followed closely by UFC on the PS3. Clearly, even with a console base twice the size of the PS3 and 360, Nintendo is not necessarily dominating the sales charts every month. Luckily, they don't have to because they developed almost every game that is selling for their systems while Microsoft and Sony have to share that success with third parties.

[Mimi Nakamura]

Are you referring to manufacturing costs or development costs? I doubt that a CD/DVD-ROM based game would be more costly to manufacture than a cartridge/circuit board based game. If it's development costs, they should find a way to cut that down.

Which one do you think I'm referring to? You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work it out.

Development costs are more expensive due to STAFF SALARIES. It takes a huge amount of people to develop a game for PS3 / XBOX 360 these days in comparison to years gone by.

I'm not sure where half of you are getting your information from.

[Ed Oscuro]

Which one do you think I'm referring to? You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work it out.
I think it would be sound to say both combined, because reducing costs always matters. This was last a major issue in the N64 / PSX days when it made a difference to publishers (not developers). Soon this may be true again with the physical copy vs. download issue (it's becoming so for me, as I now get most everything off eBay and, extremely rarely, Steam). The same economics, just applying to consumers, will also be a potential factor if this streaming games model works out (which I doubt, but whatever).

You were wondering where everybody is getting their info? Eh, game news sites and a lot of unschooled BSing? LOL

[tubeway]

As we can safely ascertain from reading this thread, everyone that reads IGN is an expert on video game development, marketing, sales, and their associated costs.

[j_factor]

Which one do you think I'm referring to? You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work it out.

Development costs are more expensive due to STAFF SALARIES. It takes a huge amount of people to develop a game for PS3 / XBOX 360 these days in comparison to years gone by.

But they also typically sell more units, even unsuccessful games. I remember when a game selling 100,000 copies was considered a significant hit. Hell, that wasn't even that long ago. Today, sales of 100,000 is considered pathetic.

[The 1 2 P]

But they also typically sell more units, even unsuccessful games. I remember when a game selling 100,000 copies was considered a significant hit. Hell, that wasn't even that long ago. Today, sales of 100,000 is considered pathetic.

The last I heard was that the average video game needed to sell either 350,000 or 400,000 copies to break even. But different games have such a varing degree of price ranges they get developed for. So maybe it's another one of those case by case issues.

[Bojay1997]

But they also typically sell more units, even unsuccessful games. I remember when a game selling 100,000 copies was considered a significant hit. Hell, that wasn't even that long ago. Today, sales of 100,000 is considered pathetic.

There are lots of unsuccessful games that sell far fewer than 100,000 units. Heck, there are some recent games by Sega that barely broke 100K in several months of sales. If you don't cover your development and marketing costs, it doesn't matter if you sell 10,000 units or 10 million, the game still won't be profitable.

[Bojay1997]

As we can safely ascertain from reading this thread, everyone that reads IGN is an expert on video game development, marketing, sales, and their associated costs.

A lot of the people posting in this thread have worked as journalists, for development houses or in related industries. For those that haven't, a big part of collecting games is understanding the past and drawing lessons for the future which actually makes most people on this board bigger experts than 2/3 of the sales and marketing people (many of whom come from other industries prior to getting into games and really aren't experts in anything but general sales and marketing techniques) at most of the major games companies today.

[j_factor]

There are lots of unsuccessful games that sell far fewer than 100,000 units. Heck, there are some recent games by Sega that barely broke 100K in several months of sales. If you don't cover your development and marketing costs, it doesn't matter if you sell 10,000 units or 10 million, the game still won't be profitable.

Yes, obviously. But my point still stands.

[ScourDX]

Is the 360 selling badly? NOPE, yet the series most everyone recognizes and loves the most on the system gets a 20 dollar price drop even selling much more than Mario on the Wii.

Microsoft is hardly lacking in sales and they still have frequent price drops for all the first party games(note Fable 2 with three million sales, released for less than a year, and already a 20 dollar price drop.)

Dude if you hate Nintendo price, then don't buy them. No one is force you to buy their games. Bitching about their price on this forum won't get you anything. It sucks, but I look for alternative to buy their games.

You can pretty much get a lot of Nintendo games for less than $25 if you know where to shop.

[j_factor]

Dude if you hate Nintendo price, then don't buy them. No one is force you to buy their games. Bitching about their price on this forum won't get you anything. It sucks, but I look for alternative to buy their games.

I don't get why people make posts like this. Nobody is forcing me to buy a Segway, and I haven't and never will, but if the subject of Segways comes up, I'm perfectly within the bounds of decent conversation to state my opinion that they're overpriced.

In all likelihood, he doesn't buy (many) Nintendo games, at least not at the normal price. That doesn't mean he's not allowed to talk about it.

[PapaStu]

I think the big reason that many complain about the prices of games today is that far too often they are short and lack replayability to justify the cost of the game. Shelling out 50-60 bucks for an 8 hour game with nothing to do once its been beaten really burns a gamer, especially when a game might be a child of the hype machine thats done nothing but tout its ability to walk on water and solve world hunger for the last 2 years all while pwning your face off because its so awesome.

Games have moved on from high scores (that heavily catered to replaying and thus stretching your gaming dollar) and become very story driven games. This puts many games that do not have multiplayer into a once and done mantra. Why would I want to go back and play Clive Barker's Jericho again, once I beat it? There is nothing new for me to discover, little reason for me to want to ramp up the difficulty and play again (when I already beat it on hard as it was) and the story wasn't even strong enough to warrant multiple replays to experience the story again.

Games that don't rely soley on the story tend to stretch that dollar a bit better. Something like a Halo 3/CoD4 have strong stories and also have great online components that make people want to come back for more once that main game is done. Also games like Beautiful Katamari which have some semblance of a scoring mechanism could concievably bring you back for more (i know it did for me). If a sandbox game is done well, then that could also keep you playing long enough to make it worth the cost. GTA IV, Saints Row, Red Faction: Guerilla all have what feels like enough content to keep a gamer playing for a LONG time before they 'complete' everything put in the game by developers.

I just try to pay attention to approxmate playtime vs cost vs replayability when it comes to the new big ticket purchases. Ghostbusters, though getting rave reviews, doesn't equate the immedate sale to me, the +/- 8 hours just isn't quite enough. I'll wait for a price drop and then get it. Some games get a pass (as it likely is for anyone that might be a fan of X series/genre) but this process has worked well for me over the years. I see no reason to change it.

[ScourDX]

I don't get why people make posts like this. Nobody is forcing me to buy a Segway, and I haven't and never will, but if the subject of Segways comes up, I'm perfectly within the bounds of decent conversation to state my opinion that they're overpriced.

In all likelihood, he doesn't buy (many) Nintendo games, at least not at the normal price. That doesn't mean he's not allowed to talk about it.

Yes, but he is targeting me for some reason even if never offend him. Read one of his post.


...If you're a Sony or Microsoft fanboy then bash the PSP Go's overpriced bullshit, but if you're a hypocritical Nintendo fanboy(after 2006) go -beeep- yourself. *edited*...

Sure he is stating an opinion, but doing so by lashing out on people is not what I expected.