Penny Arcade on Buying Used

[Griking]

The funniest thing about all of this to me is that the loss of online play only makes the pirated version that much more appealing, as it now has the same functionality as a used legit copy.


Yeah but this isn't about pirated games, it's about legit but used copies of games.

[Griking]

Now on to something that makes NO SENSE, the complaints about PRICE being a factor here? Um...$49.99 and $59.99 now for games is a JOKE. That is NOT expensive. We were paying these prices for NES games in the late 80s. We had to pay $69.99 and UP for some SNES and Genesis games. You ever seen prices on games in Japan back in the day on some stuff? 9,800 Yen and UP on a lot of games in the 90s.....

The way I see it consumers are talking with their wallets and purchasing used copies instead of used ones when they get the opportunity. This is why publishers are starting to pull these kings of stunts (disabling multi-player for used copies). When a typical mom goes to Gamestop to buy her kid a copy of the latest game and has a choice to purchase a new copy for $59.99 or an identical used copy for $49.99 what do you think she's going to chose? While most publishers may not like having to sell a newly released game for $49.99 instead of $59.99 it would still be $49.99 more than they would have gotten if it were a used copy sold.




With inflation the way it is, and with minimum wage increased, EVERYONE and their mother has game systems and multiple games and can afford them. Not everyone was able to back in the days (Remember Colecovisions at what, 299, 399 and people making like $3 an hr minimum wage? LOL..

I don't know where you live but there's a recession where I live and many people are out of jobs and buying less non essentials then they were a few years ago.

[Robocop2]

It seems to me a possible solution in the form of say a grace period of so many months after a game is released before used copies go up for sale would work at least on some level. Though enforcing such a thing outside of a gentleman's agreement would be difficult.

[DreamTR]

GameGuy: CDs vs carts is minimal, you have tons more HOURS on the games to be worked on which is why PRODUCTION costs on the GAMES are high, not the raw material.

GBoobie: Blockbuster Video sells tons of used items, as does Sam Goody and other music based stores...I honestly think that has nothing to do with it...a corporate store vs a mom and pop, setting precedence here...no distinction should ever be made. It's black and white here.

Griking: People are still buying more video games tenfold now than they were years ago, the issue is really the overall costs associated with the games. Back then you had 2 dudes in a garage and pay scale was way less. Now you have a whole team and people are still expecting to pay the same prices on games? I'm just shocked people think this way.

[Gameguy]

So more copies of games are sold now yet they're making way less money? They're doing something wrong.

Is there a reason why games need to take so much longer to produce? Can't developers choose to make simpler games if they wanted to? How about making games that have a unique style that's still visually appealing while also simpler to make, rather than focusing on making games hyper-detailed to look realistic. If my character is walking across a field, I don't need to see each individual blade of grass moving separately in the simulated wind. Just finish the game faster with less people.

Let me ask you, out of everything that you own how much of it is made in the USA? Your clothes, electronics, housewares, etc. I would assume most of it is made overseas or at least not in the USA. Companies choose to outsource manufacturing because people aren't willing to pay the labour costs to have things manufactured locally. Why are you so surprised people feel the same way about games?

[DreamTR]

So more copies of games are sold now yet they're making way less money? They're doing something wrong.

Is there a reason why games need to take so much longer to produce? Can't developers choose to make simpler games if they wanted to? How about making games that have a unique style that's still visually appealing while also simpler to make, rather than focusing on making games hyper-detailed to look realistic. If my character is walking across a field, I don't need to see each individual blade of grass moving separately in the simulated wind. Just finish the game faster with less people.

Let me ask you, out of everything that you own how much of it is made in the USA? Your clothes, electronics, housewares, etc. I would assume most of it is made overseas or at least not in the USA. Companies choose to outsource manufacturing because people aren't willing to pay the labour costs to have things manufactured locally. Why are you so surprised people feel the same way about games?

No, they're not doing "something wrong", how can you honestly think that inflation has no play in this? Do you think that the movie studios are doing something wrong because movies cost more to make these days?

You're talking about apples and oranges. People want all kinds of variety and games that are movie immersed will and always cost more with cut scenes, etc. Not everyone "wants" simple/easier games (WiiWare/Nintendo DS stuff) The "manufacturing" of the discs/cases are assembled in Mexico as a start but regardless of that I'm not saying they have a right to yell about used games, they have a right to complain about rising costs because even right down to the freaking rent in Califonia where a lot of studios are, it is VERY VERY expensive to make games these days unless you're playing $20K-40K for some stuff already premade in Japan/Korea, etc....

[kedawa]

It couldn't hurt to cut back on the CG cutscenes in a lot of games. The less non-interactive fluff the better, especially when it's a drain on the budget.

[Gamereviewgod]

No, they're not doing "something wrong", how can you honestly think that inflation has no play in this? Do you think that the movie studios are doing something wrong because movies cost more to make these days?

You're talking about apples and oranges. People want all kinds of variety and games that are movie immersed will and always cost more with cut scenes, etc. Not everyone "wants" simple/easier games (WiiWare/Nintendo DS stuff) The "manufacturing" of the discs/cases are assembled in Mexico as a start but regardless of that I'm not saying they have a right to yell about used games, they have a right to complain about rising costs because even right down to the freaking rent in Califonia where a lot of studios are, it is VERY VERY expensive to make games these days unless you're playing $20K-40K for some stuff already premade in Japan/Korea, etc....

Movie prices haven't gone up. At the theater, sure, but at home, DVDs run the same price as VHS. Blu-ray is still a premium product and will come down.

Their business model is screwed. They are at fault, but they're pushing all of it onto the consumer because they can't figure out any other way to make money. Every other business thrives despite used product on the market. Why can't game companies? Because people don't see value in paying full price anymore. It has nothing to do with inflation.

They have priced themselves out of the market. It's not just the $60 tag either; it's the endless DLC tactics, on-disc stuff that's locked, the online pass, etc. There's little value in purchasing a game these days when you're not getting it all in the first place.

I said it earlier in this thread that shorter games at lower prices are the solution. It solves everything from dev costs to a consumer's willingness to buy. God forbid if they try and make that change, because hey, a terrible 10-hour game is far better value than a classic 3-hour one, right?

[DreamTR]

Movie prices haven't gone up. At the theater, sure, but at home, DVDs run the same price as VHS. Blu-ray is still a premium product and will come down.

Their business model is screwed. They are at fault, but they're pushing all of it onto the consumer because they can't figure out any other way to make money. Every other business thrives despite used product on the market. Why can't game companies? Because people don't see value in paying full price anymore. It has nothing to do with inflation.

They have priced themselves out of the market. It's not just the $60 tag either; it's the endless DLC tactics, on-disc stuff that's locked, the online pass, etc. There's little value in purchasing a game these days when you're not getting it all in the first place.

I said it earlier in this thread that shorter games at lower prices are the solution. It solves everything from dev costs to a consumer's willingness to buy. God forbid if they try and make that change, because hey, a terrible 10-hour game is far better value than a classic 3-hour one, right?


LOL, the COST to make a movie. Not the cost to make a DVD. Cost to make movies...some are $150 million PLUS. That is what I mean. The costs to make movies and some games are comparable now.

Getting ad-ons later keep the game fresh. If it is their only way to make profit, so be it. I don't agree with all of them, but the movie studios have it correct right now...

[Griking]

No, they're not doing "something wrong", how can you honestly think that inflation has no play in this? Do you think that the movie studios are doing something wrong because movies cost more to make these days?

Inflation definitely has a part in it though I'm looking at it more from the consumer's side. All the middle class families that I know are pinching their pennies as much if not more than most companies and while they may not completely give up gaming because of it they're definitely saving money by buying used over new.

The fact that most consumers aren't freely spending yet is what's keeping our economy from recovering as quickly as all the experts thought it would. Companies are waiting for consumers to spend before they'll hire. Consumers are waiting for companies to hire before they're spend.

[Gameguy]

The movie companies are fine, the costs to make movies are higher now but they're still making a huge profit. Game companies aren't making a profit, that's why they're complaining about used sales and several developers are going bankrupt. If they can't make a profit with what they're doing, they have to change what they're doing.

How much are new DVDs anyway? Most are around $20-$30 new, since games now cost about the same to make as a movie why are games priced $50-$60 instead of $20-$30? I'm not mentioning this because of the manufacturing costs of the discs themselves, why do games have to be priced higher so they can break even from total production costs?

I do think that current movies kind of suck compared to older films because they rely too heavily on special effects instead of good writting, but that's something else to complain about. ;)

[Griking]

Movie prices haven't gone up. At the theater, sure, but at home, DVDs run the same price as VHS. Blu-ray is still a premium product and will come down.

Their business model is screwed. They are at fault, but they're pushing all of it onto the consumer because they can't figure out any other way to make money. Every other business thrives despite used product on the market. Why can't game companies? Because people don't see value in paying full price anymore. It has nothing to do with inflation.

In the game industry's defense the movie industry really isn't the same. First of all, all major movie releases are shown in thousands of theaters across the country at about $12 a pop before they're available for purchase anywhere new, never mind used. If brand new movie releases were available for purchase used a day after it's national release it would devastate the movie industry.

[Gameguy]

In the game industry's defense the movie industry really isn't the same. First of all, all major movie releases are shown in thousands of theaters across the country at about $12 a pop before they're available for purchase anywhere new, never mind used. If brand new movie releases were available for purchase used a day after it's national release it would devastate the movie industry.
They used to have the arcade industry until they killed it off. People would pay to play the games at the arcades, then buy the home console version. Right now some companies offer Betas for people to try out, they're getting fans/potential customers to do the work as play testers for them for free. If they could figure out how to get people to pay to play a game "before it's release" they could get more revenue, maybe open their own types of theaters where people pay to try out console games before they hit the stores.

[emceelokey]

They used to have the arcade industry until they killed it off. People would pay to play the games at the arcades, then buy the home console version. Right now some companies offer Betas for people to try out, they're getting fans/potential customers to do the work as play testers for them for free. If they could figure out how to get people to pay to play a game "before it's release" they could get more revenue, maybe open their own types of theaters where people pay to try out console games before they hit the stores.


The difference between an arcade game and a beta is that an arcade game is a finished product a beta is a work in progress. Arcade games would be tested before being released so that paying to play an unfinished game won't work. Plus if I payed to play a beta and that beta version wasn't good, I'm probably not going to pay for a finished version, even if it was vastly improved.

The movie industry / game industry comparison is a bit flawed too. When you hear something like Halo 3 has earned more than Harry Potter 3. The Harry Potter 3 part is just the box office and doesn't include the DVD sales and the eventual licensing to movie channels and tv channels, PPV sales, and online rentals and so fourth (itunes downloads, new mediums/ re releases etc.). With a movie, there's many more streams of potential revenue off of one product than there is for a game. So a movie that doesn't do well in theaters can still make money back in many other forms. If Mirror's Edge didn't perform well sales wise that's pretty much it. The best EA can do is to lower the price of the remaining stock and maybe release it as a down loadable game.

[Nightram]

This is an interesting topic.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody buys directly from the developer when talking about physical copies. Publishers sell to distributors. Companies (Target, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Gamestop, etc.) order a decided-upon number of copies from these distributors with wholesale pricing. The profit, and responsibility, for the developer/publisher/distributor stops here. They don't make money if Target sells the game, they've already made the money on the sale to Target.
Each ordered copy is a game sold in the publisher's eyes. So, they should be mad at Gamestop because out of all of these companies they are the only one that maybe only orders two to three copies per store, where Targets and Best Buys will carry ten and up. There is not much profit for Gamestop on new sales, where they get 100% profit from a used game sale (minus the cost of the credit on the trade-in I suppose).
The consumer purchases the game from these companies (Target, Best Buy, Gamestop) and the companies make the profit from the game sale. Why attack the consumer? Well, I think they're specifically frustrated with the Gamestop customer who only buys current gen used. Still, there is no specific mention of this, as they are just saying all customers are annoying. Not a good thing for any company to say in a public setting.

If these sellers sell out of the game, then they have reason to order more, and I think that is where the frustration lies. They're seeing less companies return for more copies from the distributor. This may be because companies are getting wiser as to which games sell and how many copies to order based on past sales of title/developer/etc. They also know which games will get people in the stores, and therefore advertise those more effectively. Gamestop doesn't have a reason to order more after they run out because they know they'll get used copies in and they can shift stock around as well. Red Dead Redemtion was a shock to many sellers. It was sold out everywhere, so it was considered a major success because of all the re-ordering.

I have heard that games have a two-week period of sales to be considered a success or failure. Only sales in those two weeks are watched because after that they can assume that used sales are the majority of the copies sold. That's wild to me when they talk about some of the budgets of current gen projects, but I think that means that the period where sellers are going to order more copies elapses in two weeks. They just like to get that jab in to used retailers.
Still, it's the responsibility of the company that owns the stock of the game to liquidate the games that aren't selling well, or buy more if they are. The consumers part to play is to tell the seller whether they want the product by buying it or not. Used sales mess up this interplay, sure, but the stock of sellers like Target and Best Buy are already "sold" copies sitting in stores that the developer has long forgotten about. Best Buy doesn't have to ask THQ if they can knock $10 off a non-selling game. It's business. Get rid of the purchased stock that isn't selling without losing too much profit, or shift it where it is selling. I've heard Gamestop even purchases large loads of games cheap from larger retailers looking to liquidate stock so they can turn around and sell them used in their stores, but we're still talking about copies that should be considered purchased in the eyes of the developer!

So, I get that the current market is frustrating to a developer, but I'm not sure putting the blame on the consumer is even close to the first thing you should consider.

I see a lot of numbers and charts on sites like Kotaku showing how many pirated copies vs. how many legit copies are active in the market. Those blow my mind. I feel so bad for developers that see so many people enjoying their game they worked so hard on for free. I'm surprised that some equate that with used sales though. I have yet to see numbers for specific titles broken down by used vs. new sales, but I'd like to. As has been brought up, the used sale implies that there was already a purchased copy, but when the used copy is sold it takes away from the sale of another new copy. In piracy there may have been one purchased copy per one million downloads or something. While there is very little a company can do to prevent piracy without pissing off the legitimate consumer and spending more on prevention than they would see in profits, it is troubling and depressing. I'd chalk up the closing companies, laid-off developers, and decreased sales more to piracy than I would used sales. Just seems unbalanced.

The majority of what I have seen hurts game sales the most are bad reviews (meaning the game sucks) or poor marketing (in cases like Okami and Beyond Good & Evil). While some companies have tried to influence the former, they really only have control over the latter. The have zero control over the consumer, though they can attempt to influence them with all sorts of tactics. I can definitely see the frustration in that, but that's a part of every business.

This whole debate spawns more out of after-market support rather than the initial sale though. I can definitely understand the developer feeling that they are paying to support a user base that is probably not even 50% initial buyers. Using server space and paying bandwidth for the other half is cutting into profits, but instead of blaming the consumer they need to figure out a way around it. Consumers will take advantage of loopholes.

In regards to comparisons, I think gaming is its own beast. It is STILL considered an immature industry/market. We're all still figuring out what works. Any time we try to impose the methods or successes/failures of another industry (movies, cars, etc.) on the game industry it just doesn't work. You have to give Gamestop some credit for finding a niche that works in such a new industry. While many of their practices are questionable and I think that they do affect the industry negatively as a whole, they exist and the industry needs to figure out a way to work with it rather than against it. Traditionally, if a method of attaining media apart from buying it brand new surfaces and the company that produces it fights that new method rather than embracing it, the company loses more money and customers in fighting it than just ignoring it or adapting to it. While used sales are hard to embrace, limiting the consumer experience for used games will lead to less consumer loyalty and possibly even backlash. DRM is definitely a good example of this, as it spurned more consumers to become pirates.

There is a market for used games because consumers want to save money. The argument about them being the same quality as new is also . . . well . . . ignorant, as disc scratches, missing manuals, and stickers all play into the degradation of a used copy. Gamestop is just shrinking the distinguishing marks between used and new by adding stickers and eliminating the seal. You can't fault consumers for wanting to save money, but you can fault the businesses that provide the means. Still, you can't control those companies so you either try to hurt its business or hurt consumers perception of it. I think an adapted business model is in order, like the aforementioned bonus content or VIP status for those that buy new. That's brilliant, it doesn't limit anybody substantially, and it promotes what the developer wants.

Consumers will eventually argue that game prices never go down once it's DLC only, if the current downloadable full titles are any indication. This is garbage to me, to offer a game that has been on the market for several years at $39.99-19.99 for download. If they go download only they need a better over-time pricing scheme, or everyone will just say they are greedy. Then we'll see the quality of games being called into question even more, and the price-per-hour of gaming arguments discussed ad nauseam.

In the end, the only side that needs to do more work to get what they want is the developer/publisher, because the consumer will never change.

[PapaStu]

This is an interesting topic.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody buys directly from the developer when talking about physical copies. Publishers sell to distributors. Companies (Target, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Gamestop, etc.) order a decided-upon number of copies from these distributors with wholesale pricing. The profit, and responsibility, for the developer/publisher/distributor stops here. They don't make money if Target sells the game, they've already made the money on the sale to Target.
Each ordered copy is a game sold in the publisher's eyes. So, they should be mad at Gamestop because out of all of these companies they are the only one that maybe only orders two to three copies per store, where Targets and Best Buys will carry ten and up. There is not much profit for Gamestop on new sales, where they get 100% profit from a used game sale (minus the cost of the credit on the trade-in I suppose).
The consumer purchases the game from these companies (Target, Best Buy, Gamestop) and the companies make the profit from the game sale. Why attack the consumer? Well, I think they're specifically frustrated with the Gamestop customer who only buys current gen used. Still, there is no specific mention of this, as they are just saying all customers are annoying. Not a good thing for any company to say in a public setting.




You're wrong. The big boys all have their own buyers. They are dealing directly with the publishers of the games. The only time distrubutors are in play at all is in regards to the 'Mom & Pop' locations as they don't have the buying (or selling) power to place minimum orders through the publishers anymore. The little guys need the distributors. Not the big guys. Do you think WalMart keeps their stuff cheap by going through a middleman?

Also, most of the big boys don't stock the kind of selection that GameStop does. They are the rare horse that has 100+ titles for each current Gen system new, in addition to their used sections. Go walk through Target or Walmart, 2 4' sections with 30-40 games doesn't carry the same kind of sway. Save for big titles, the big boys only usually do one order of the titles for each location. You'll also get lucky with the current batch of 'budget' crap that is on some form of display that gets a restock, but the rest of stuff is gone when its sold off the shelves. If it doesn't sell, then it gets clearanced off so they can make room for the next wave of big release stuff.

[Gameguy]

The difference between an arcade game and a beta is that an arcade game is a finished product a beta is a work in progress. Arcade games would be tested before being released so that paying to play an unfinished game won't work. Plus if I payed to play a beta and that beta version wasn't good, I'm probably not going to pay for a finished version, even if it was vastly improved.
Those were two separate points, I really should have had separate paragraphs.

1. They could go back to making arcade games, or have people pay to play a game a month or two before a home version gets released(it would be finished, not an unfinished beta). Sort of like how they played Super Mario 3 in The Wizard before it was released, but I'm not talking about making it like a contest. Even if it was to pay to be let into a place to play full versions of various games on kiosks it might be another good source of revenue. People love to play stuff "first", it's the only reason I could see people lining up all night for system launches or paying triple value for consoles on ebay when a system is new.

2. They release unfinished betas for people to play test, it's free labour for them. If they're still not making money and labour costs are still too high, they're doing something wrong. I don't have a problem with smaller companies doing this such as with Pier Solar as that's a fan project just done in spare time, it was priced extremely well, and the creators really want it to be perfect before getting released(extremely high quality stuff). It just seems a bit different when a bigger company with a much bigger budget does this to save costs. I'm honestly looking forward to Pier Solar much more than any other $60 current games I see coming out.

[Nightram]

You're wrong. The big boys all have their own buyers. They are dealing directly with the publishers of the games. The only time distrubutors are in play at all is in regards to the 'Mom & Pop' locations as they don't have the buying (or selling) power to place minimum orders through the publishers anymore. The little guys need the distributors. Not the big guys. Do you think WalMart keeps their stuff cheap by going through a middleman?

Also, most of the big boys don't stock the kind of selection that GameStop does. They are the rare horse that has 100+ titles for each current Gen system new, in addition to their used sections. Go walk through Target or Walmart, 2 4' sections with 30-40 games doesn't carry the same kind of sway. Save for big titles, the big boys only usually do one order of the titles for each location. You'll also get lucky with the current batch of 'budget' crap that is on some form of display that gets a restock, but the rest of stuff is gone when its sold off the shelves. If it doesn't sell, then it gets clearanced off so they can make room for the next wave of big release stuff.

I had an inkling that that was the case, but I had only heard of distributors. The point still holds true though. Despite where they get the new games from, the sale takes place before the consumer ever sees it on a shelf. Even if the game never sells on the shelf, the developer sees the money from the sale. Used games only come in strong after the two-week window, thus potentially pulling away from the new sales if consumers are utilizing places that do this like Gamestop.
Interesting to note too that several other large retailers, like Toys R Us, Target, and Best Buy are getting in to the act of used sales.

[Eduardo]

How about making games that take longer to beat?

[eskobar]

I just started to read the thread, but here is my point of view:



I understand that developers don't get a penny from used game sales and that hurts them, but what about a bad game, average or extremely short game ?, Can you measure equally the companies products ????

I understand that gamestop has been bashed a million times ... but isn't good to the country that gamestop employs too many people and pay taxes ???. I am not sure that a chain store like this could survive as it is now just selling new games !!

There are many options, but i think that a great game sells itself .... and some great games are just not that easy sellable to the masses, be it new or used.

[emceelokey]

There are many options, but i think that a great game sells itself .... and some great games are just not that easy sellable to the masses, be it new or used.

It would be nice if a great game sold itself but that's never the case. Brute Force on Xbox most likely made it's money back in the first month while Psychonauts on XBox and PS2 is probably still trying to break even eventhough it's now available as a downloadable game.

[Gameguy]

It would be nice if a great game sold itself but that's never the case. Brute Force on Xbox most likely made it's money back in the first month while Psychonauts on XBox and PS2 is probably still trying to break even eventhough it's now available as a downloadable game.
That's true, they still need to be marketed and advertised properly for the general public to know about it. It's just that if a title has extremely high reviews, it sells much better. People will only look up reviews if they've heard of a title. I'm thinking of the US release of Phoenix Wright, it originally had a low print run but was reprinted due to increased demand and became a really popular series. I don't remember about it being advertised heavily, I just remember people talking about how good it was and I became interested in it.

I should pick up a copy of Psychonauts for the PC if I come across another copy, I passed on a new copy for $5 a few years ago because I didn't have a PC at the time that was powerful enough to run it.

[DreamTR]

The movie companies are fine, the costs to make movies are higher now but they're still making a huge profit. Game companies aren't making a profit, that's why they're complaining about used sales and several developers are going bankrupt. If they can't make a profit with what they're doing, they have to change what they're doing.

How much are new DVDs anyway? Most are around $20-$30 new, since games now cost about the same to make as a movie why are games priced $50-$60 instead of $20-$30? I'm not mentioning this because of the manufacturing costs of the discs themselves, why do games have to be priced higher so they can break even from total production costs?

I do think that current movies kind of suck compared to older films because they rely too heavily on special effects instead of good writting, but that's something else to complain about. ;)


Because games don't release their stuff in theatres for 5-6 weeks BEFORE they go on video/DVD. I'm still not sure why you keep bringing up the production costs of physical DVD/BluRay over the actual costs of EMPLOYEES and R & D making the games, that is where the cost lies.

When you have a movie making $150 million in theatres of course they can release it later on DVD at $19-24 or so.

Game companies don't have that luxury and when games start to "not sell" for certain places, companies have a safety net where they can do a price protection on a game if it does not sell well sometimes.

Just because a company sells a $20 game retail to GameStop for $12 doesn't mean GameStop is paying it all at once, nor does it mean that $12 is going to stay $12, it might go to $10, 9, etc eventually. Sometimes companies ignore price protection but you have to keep relationships as well, it's a tricky process sometimes...

My whole point is this, we have had recessions before, and people have way more video games now than they ever did and the industry is gigantic and we are still paying the SAME AMOUNTS OF MONEY if not LESS for NEW games.

I just can't give in to anyone ever thinking $40-60 for a game in 2010 is too expensive when people paid just as much if not more in the 80s and 90s for certain games and not even to mention ludicrous Neo Geo/late Genesis/3DO price marks (obviously some of these systems failed) but there is just no way companies can make the same kind of money they used to...

If a game cost $1 million to make in the 90s (ha), it's $5-20 million sometimes now but the price points are still the same on the games because production.labor took the place of cart vs CD costs....

[SegaAges]

Yeah, the prices have not really gone up or down all that much. Some N64 games were hitting the $75 price point for a new game.

Chances are that if you can't afford $60, you can't afford $50 either, which seems to be that one small bargaining chip you are trying to hold onto

[DreamTR]

Yeah, the prices have not really gone up or down all that much. Some N64 games were hitting the $75 price point for a new game.

Chances are that if you can't afford $60, you can't afford $50 either, which seems to be that one small bargaining chip you are trying to hold onto

Exactly. And even moreso disk based games in the early 90s...same prices we are paying now. Arguments about production of CDs for cost make no sense.

Profitability these days = WiiWare, Xbox Live Arcade, PSN Network, that's the way to go if you are trying to get your game to a profitable state....

[Gameguy]

Because games don't release their stuff in theatres for 5-6 weeks BEFORE they go on video/DVD. I'm still not sure why you keep bringing up the production costs of physical DVD/BluRay over the actual costs of EMPLOYEES and R & D making the games, that is where the cost lies
I don't know why YOU keep bringing up the manufacturing costs of the physical media. I said the manufacturing costs of the media isn't what affects the price of games because it's the same for both games and movie DVDs, DVDs are priced much cheaper though movies cost the same to make as games.

You've correctly mentioned why they're priced higher, they don't have a theatrical release. Since they aren't able to make as much money as a film, the development studios shouldn't be spending as much on them as a film. HAVE LESS EMPLOYEES!!


If a game cost $1 million to make in the 90s (ha), it's $5-20 million sometimes now but the price points are still the same on the games because production.labor took the place of cart vs CD costs....
I've said it earlier but I guess I need to say it again more clearly. If they aren't making enough money, EMPLOY LESS PEOPLE. Then production costs will be less.



The retail price of Zelda: Spirit Tracks is $39.99. The retail price of Dragon Quest IX: Sentinels of the Starry Skies is $34.99. Why are these games priced cheaper than most new console releases? Did they cost less to produce for some reason? If so, does that mean they suck compared to a new console release? It can't be, they both have a rating of 87% on Metacritic. There's no reason why new games have to be so expensive to produce.

Kane and Lynch 2: Dog Days for PS3 has a retail price of $59.99, it has a rating on Metacritic of 64%. Higher production cost does not mean better product.

[DreamTR]

I don't know why YOU keep bringing up the manufacturing costs of the physical media. I said the manufacturing costs of the media isn't what affects the price of games because it's the same for both games and movie DVDs, DVDs are priced much cheaper though movies cost the same to make as games.

You've correctly mentioned why they're priced higher, they don't have a theatrical release. Since they aren't able to make as much money as a film, the development studios shouldn't be spending as much on them as a film. HAVE LESS EMPLOYEES!!


I've said it earlier but I guess I need to say it again more clearly. If they aren't making enough money, EMPLOY LESS PEOPLE. Then production costs will be less.



The retail price of Zelda: Spirit Tracks is $39.99. The retail price of Dragon Quest IX: Sentinels of the Starry Skies is $34.99. Why are these games priced cheaper than most new console releases? Did they cost less to produce for some reason? If so, does that mean they suck compared to a new console release? It can't be, they both have a rating of 87% on Metacritic. There's no reason why new games have to be so expensive to produce.

Kane and Lynch 2: Dog Days for PS3 has a retail price of $59.99, it has a rating on Metacritic of 64%. Higher production cost does not mean better product.


So suffering quality control for bad games so they can be more profitable? That's your solution? Have less people working on games? That's a sure fire way to make our game industry even worse and stick a fork in the job sector....you're talking about games that REQUIRE more time and more people.

Now you are comparing Nintendo DS Games (1st party 34.99 vs 3rd party 29.99) to PlayStation 3 games? Do you really think comparing those even makes any sense?

I'm not sure what you mean by "there is no reason" games should be expensive to reproduce. They are. That's a fact. PlayStation 3 and Xenon costs are not cheap for disk media. You don't see mom and pop companies diving on those like you do on Nintendo DS and Wii and the downloadable stuff.

What baffles me still is that you realy think games are expensive knowing full well they have been the same price and are even CHEAPER years later even AS production costs have gone up.

Why does it cost $200 million to make some movies now? "There is no reason it should" as your answer but seriously, why argue when gamers have been spoiled now by pricing and better technology without paying more for their games?

That's my entire basis for replying to you. You're complaining about something when you've already been given a break on pricing for 20+ years, LOL

[Nature Boy]

HAVE LESS EMPLOYEES!!

This generalization kinda kills me.

Just thinking off the top of my head, if it takes say 10 people two years to produce a game for me, and I decide that I've got 9 people too many, I'm now looking at 20 years before I get my product out the door. Assuming those 10 people all had the same salaries, my costs aren't any different either.

It doesn't work that cleanly from a mathematical point of view obviously, but the fact remains that it's the amount of work ahead of you and the effort involved to get it completed in a reasonable time that dictates staffing.

It reminds me of the argument "DO LESS MARKETING" when people think things cost too much, which is also bollocks.

[eskobar]

Obviously employing less people to develop a game will not make a big difference in cost; the development cycles are what keeps the costs higher, but developing high quality software for actual technology is just too much work.

I do understand what you mean about developing for the Wii or DS, those games are of similar quality because the gameplay is not proportional to the hardware you chose to develop. If more developers need more profit, they should change the focus of its development and go for another market.

What could happen if the "used market" didn't exist ? ....

Probably some developers will find another topic to blame for marginal profits or losses.

[cityside75]

What could happen if the "used market" didn't exist ? ....

Probably some developers will find another topic to blame for marginal profits or losses.

Yeah, this thought crossed my mind today while listening to the CAGcast guys talking about the issue.

This is the first console generation where at least Sony and MS have made significant inroads toward thwarting piracy (not sure about the Wii). Between digital distribution, constantly updated firmware, banning users from Xbox Live, etc. it seems like piracy is probably greatly reduced. Of course, piracy was the "boogeyman" of the last few generations that was causing similar types of discussions and debates. I was with the game developers and manufacturers on that one and I have to believe that there's been some positive impact on their bottom line as a result of reducing that problem.

But this feels like the "next item on the list" that can be addressed toward the goal of having all consumers spend $60 on any full game they want to play. I don't remember much angst about the used game market back in the PS1 days when Gamestop was still thriving, but a mod chip and a CD burner could get you games for free.

[Griking]

I just can't give in to anyone ever thinking $40-60 for a game in 2010 is too expensive when people paid just as much if not more in the 80s and 90s for certain games and not even to mention ludicrous Neo Geo/late Genesis/3DO price marks (obviously some of these systems failed) but there is just no way companies can make the same kind of money they used to...

The only reason that Gamestop is in business and makes as much money as they do is because there are so many people who would rather pay less for a used copy of a then pay more for a new copy. The numbers don't lie, people like to save money.

Developers don't have many options. They either have to reduce the price of their games to a level that more people are comfortable with paying or they need to somehow make used games less appealing and the only way I see that happening is by the use of key codes that either blocks content or by following the PC gaming industry's lead and tying a game to a specific console.

[Gameguy]

Now you are comparing Nintendo DS Games (1st party 34.99 vs 3rd party 29.99) to PlayStation 3 games? Do you really think comparing those even makes any sense?
Sure I do, they're both current games aren't they? Why shouldn't I compare them?


Why does it cost $200 million to make some movies now? "There is no reason it should" as your answer but seriously, why argue when gamers have been spoiled now by pricing and better technology without paying more for their games?
I pretty much feel the same way. I'd prefer films that have an actual good story and good acting, those don't necessarily need to cost $200 million to make. There's several independant low budget films that I like. The last movie I saw in theaters was Toy Story 3, it had a budget of $200 million dollars but it brought it in over $1 Billion dollars. If they're actually profitable then who cares what they spend on it? They're not complaining about used sales like some game companies.

And Toy Story 3 was an awesome movie, I checked out numerous reviews before seeing it and it was the best movie in theaters at the time. Most other films just got average or poor ratings. Another more recent movie is The Last Airbender which had a budget of $150 million dollars, it has poor reviews and currently has a rating of 20% on Metacritic. It still made a profit bringing in $252 million dollars, though I wish it didn't. Slumdog Millionaire cost $15 million dollars to make, and it made over $377 million dollars. It won numerous awards(8 Acadamy Awards, 7 BAFTA Awards, 4 Golden Globe Awards, 5 Critics' Choice Awards) and it's rated 86% on Metacritic.

So do movies need a budget of $200 million dollars? I don't think so.


This generalization kinda kills me.

Just thinking off the top of my head, if it takes say 10 people two years to produce a game for me, and I decide that I've got 9 people too many, I'm now looking at 20 years before I get my product out the door. Assuming those 10 people all had the same salaries, my costs aren't any different either.
It would be great if modern games only took 10 people to make, current games often take hundreds of people to make. That's a lot.

How many studios went bankrupt recently? If studios go bankrupt then all the employees will be out of work anyway.

Here's some examples;
http://www.indievision.org/?p=1504


I do understand what you mean about developing for the Wii or DS, those games are of similar quality because the gameplay is not proportional to the hardware you chose to develop. If more developers need more profit, they should change the focus of its development and go for another market.
Thank you, this is pretty much what I was getting at.

[eskobar]

The only reason that Gamestop is in business and makes as much money as they do is because there are so many people who would rather pay less for a used copy of a then pay more for a new copy. The numbers don't lie, people like to save money.

Developers don't have many options. They either have to reduce the price of their games to a level that more people are comfortable with paying or they need to somehow make used games less appealing and the only way I see that happening is by the use of key codes that either blocks content or by following the PC gaming industry's lead and tying a game to a specific console.


The problem is that NOT EVERY game released is worth 59.99 usd, there are way too many mediocre and bad games in the market that manage to sell tens of thousand units with marketing alone .... developers do have options, so consumers.

Developers should remember the great support that the GREATEST HITS campaign gives them to keep making profit of old hits. Many consumers prefer to buy a brand new GH title than a USED copy of the game.

Also, blocking content or limiting the online component of a game to only one console is not fair, because if you purchased a game, you should have the right to play as long as the service exists, even if the user is not the same person, in the end only one user is connected.

If you played uncharted 2 online you probably keep the game after finishing the single player missions .... and is very probable that you end up buying the DLC !!. That Uncharted 2 is so great is not because of magic, the developers did an amazing job and any developer should be working on how to improve a product and not complaining about stuff like this.

Almost everyone talks about the developer's rights and seem to forget that we, as consumers, have rights too.

[Zthun]

Sure I do, they're both current games aren't they? Why shouldn't I compare them?

The cost of a blu-ray disc and an HD-DVD disc is MUCH higher than an SD card and a blank DVD.

[eskobar]

The cost of a blu-ray disc and an HD-DVD disc is MUCH higher than an SD card and a blank DVD.

How much do they cost ???


Single layer Blu Rays cost less than 2 usd, don't they ? :help:

To produce an SD card couldn't be much cheaper :puppydogeyes:

[Zthun]

How much do they cost ???


Single layer Blu Rays cost less than 2 usd, don't they ? :help:

To produce an SD card couldn't be much cheaper :puppydogeyes:

Single layer blu-ray ranges from $3.00 to $7.00 each. The cheaper you go, the worse the media.

Since some of the games use duel layer, (50GB), those rage from $10-$20 each depending on brand.

Of course, this depends on the burn speed as well, and I don't know what Sony uses internally. Sony and Panasonic own the patent on blu-ray, so I don't know what deals they make.

[eskobar]

Single layer blu-ray ranges from $3.00 to $7.00 each. The cheaper you go, the worse the media.

Since some of the games use duel layer, (50GB), those rage from $10-$20 each depending on brand.

Of course, this depends on the burn speed as well, and I don't know what Sony uses internally. Sony and Panasonic own the patent on blu-ray, so I don't know what deals they make.

3 to 7 usd should be end consumer price, right ????

Producing millions of Blu-Ray discs should lower the cost of a SL Blu-Ray to 2 usd in my opinion.

DL Blu Rays are more expensive but i think that only MGS4 and GoW3 use that discs ...

[kedawa]

Writeable discs and pressed discs are not the same thing AT ALL.

The packaging costs more than the media for disc based games.

[dra600n]

Single layer blu-ray ranges from $3.00 to $7.00 each. The cheaper you go, the worse the media.

Since some of the games use duel layer, (50GB), those rage from $10-$20 each depending on brand.

Of course, this depends on the burn speed as well, and I don't know what Sony uses internally. Sony and Panasonic own the patent on blu-ray, so I don't know what deals they make.

Those prices are if you're buying single discs. If you buy in bulk, or have a factory that makes them (which Sony does, or at least they have a company to make the media for them), they literally cost pennies to Sony and anyone affiliated with them.

Best Buy prices (which best buy marks up 40% or HIGHER to the consumer, so this is at consumer costs, not manufactures costs).

3 Blu Ray 25GB Discs: $18.99 = $6.33 per disc
10 Blu Ray 25 GB Discs: $42.99 = $4.29 per disc

Right there, at double the price, you get almost 1/3 off per disc, and get 33.33% MORE discs. So your entire point of blu ray costing so much is really a moot and worthless effort, especially when these games are mass produced.

There really shouldn't be a reason why games cost $49.99 to $59.99 when literally 75% of these games are garbage. Why do you think we're all here at a retro gaming forum? Because we love the old games. Who cares about graphics? Asteroids blew in the graphics department, but it was fun as hell. Assassin's Creed had amazing graphics, but the story line/game play is really boring.

Take Ghostbusters (the new one on the current gen consoles), it's a fun game, albeit short (maybe 4 hours to beat the entire game), but that's one of the few games that deserves the price tag of $49 or $59. The replay value to me is pretty high. As are the lego games and some of the music games.

Final Fantasy 13... very linear, a shit ton of boring ass grinding, but amazing graphics. Is it worth the $59 price tag? Hell no. And this is coming from a Final Fantasy junky.

If these developers want to make more money, they need to focus on game play and story line... not try to be some crazy inventive company that has these failed/half assed systems in games with spectacular graphics.

[Zthun]

Those prices are if you're buying single discs. If you buy in bulk, or have a factory that makes them (which Sony does, or at least they have a company to make the media for them), they literally cost pennies to Sony and anyone affiliated with them.

Best Buy prices (which best buy marks up 40% or HIGHER to the consumer, so this is at consumer costs, not manufactures costs).

3 Blu Ray 25GB Discs: $18.99 = $6.33 per disc
10 Blu Ray 25 GB Discs: $42.99 = $4.29 per disc

Right there, at double the price, you get almost 1/3 off per disc, and get 33.33% MORE discs. So your entire point of blu ray costing so much is really a moot and worthless effort, especially when these games are mass produced.

There really shouldn't be a reason why games cost $49.99 to $59.99 when literally 75% of these games are garbage. Why do you think we're all here at a retro gaming forum? Because we love the old games. Who cares about graphics? Asteroids blew in the graphics department, but it was fun as hell. Assassin's Creed had amazing graphics, but the story line/game play is really boring.

Take Ghostbusters (the new one on the current gen consoles), it's a fun game, albeit short (maybe 4 hours to beat the entire game), but that's one of the few games that deserves the price tag of $49 or $59. The replay value to me is pretty high. As are the lego games and some of the music games.

Final Fantasy 13... very linear, a shit ton of boring ass grinding, but amazing graphics. Is it worth the $59 price tag? Hell no. And this is coming from a Final Fantasy junky.

If these developers want to make more money, they need to focus on game play and story line... not try to be some crazy inventive company that has these failed/half assed systems in games with spectacular graphics.

I'm assuming that those pre-printed discs are much cheaper, but in reality, you can't assume why the games are more expensive. Why are DLC games only $15 - $20? Mega Man 9 and 10 can be full blown releases on disc, but they're only a fraction of the MSRP. Why is this?

Honestly, all everyone can do here is guess. We can sit here all day guessing as to why with answers ranging from greed to materials to any other reason you might thing.

My guess was the blu-ray since my company buy's blu-ray discs at around $5 per disc for testing purposes. When blu-ray first came out, they were $15 per disc and that was the price we paid for them. We would buy them in bulk as well, using RW's to save costs. Unless a Sony or Microsoft representative comes in here and discusses the inner workings, then you're not gonna have an answer.

As far as 'making' better games goes, that doesn't matter. What companies and studios are focused on is games that sell. I find the grand theft auto series to be absolute shit, but everyone else loves it. I'm just one person. You can't force what people like and don't like. We all love classic gaming, but the other 90% of the world doesn't care. Classic gaming is nice memories, but the average person is going to be more concerned with their modern warfare 2, halo, and uncharted.

If it doesn't sell, it's not gonna get made in the long run. If a product sells, it doesn't matter if a few people don't like it. That's why THQ doesn't give a shit about the used market. The customers that buy from the used market don't do anything for them, so they want to reward and focus in on the market that makes them profit. That is how business works.

[Gameguy]

The cost of a blu-ray disc and an HD-DVD disc is MUCH higher than an SD card and a blank DVD.
So is it because of the manufacturing costs or not? LOL

I'm assuming you're talking about the costs of recordable media. Factory pressed discs are cheaper when made in bulk compared to recordable media, they're manufactured completely differently too. It can't be more than a few dollars for each complete copy produced. Besides, developers could choose to follow the Wii route, it was designed to be a slightly underpowered machine so it's cheaper to produce and make games for.


As for why people were more willing to buy expensive games in the early 90's compared to today, there's more options available now. Back then when the SNES and Genesis were current and expensive, what alternatives did people have? You could get an NES, an Atari 2600, one of the slightly less popular older systems(Colecovision, Intellivision, Atari 5200, Sega Master System, etc) which really had poorer graphics and different style games compared to the 16 bit systems. What about today? There's PS2, Gamecube, Xbox, Dreamcast, Saturn, PS1, N64, SNES, Genesis, multiple decent portable systems, etc. There's really many more alternatives now, I don't really need to get a current system as there's thousands of other games for other systems instead. I didn't bother to list the less popular systems that most people still don't care about(3DO, CD-I, etc). Of course this is another reason why developers hate used games.

I honestly don't care if games or movies require a big budget or not. There's just one thing I care about. If something is big budget, it better be good. I know that The Wizard of Oz from 1939 was really expensive at the time it was made, it's fine as it's really an amazing film. As long as the final result is outstanding(not average), it's fine by me.

[s1lence]

Late to the thread but the comparison to cars is interesting.

Working at a dealer, we love used cars. The margins are much greater then they are on new meaning.....dun dun dun MORE profit. The manufacturer doesn't tell us we are evil and bad and taking sales away from the new car dept. In the auto market new and used work hand in hand. People trade in used to get new all the time. Then we resell the used car to someone that is thrifty or just can afford a new car. Time and time again though over time the used car buyer can afford a new car someday, meaning profit for the maker of the car.

There are of course lease programs and stuff like that which can also benefit the maker.

I just don't understand the hate of saving money which is why many people buy used, they simply can't afford new. We all can't afford 60 bucks for every sequel/rehash/garbage title. I have a large number of current console games and most I do get on discount, be it used or when it the price drops after what seems like 1 month of time.

Digital downloads and a lack of used/trading/reselling is scary as many of us here sell used games to make money to....buy games. I just see a huge shift coming and the majority of us is going to get screwed.

[dra600n]

Why are DLC games only $15 - $20? Mega Man 9 and 10 can be full blown releases on disc, but they're only a fraction of the MSRP. Why is this?

If it doesn't sell, it's not gonna get made in the long run.

As far as 'making' better games goes, that doesn't matter.


DLC games are, from what I've seen (and you can tell me I'm wrong because I'm sure I am) are games that have been out for X amount of time and have stopped selling mass quantities in the stores. Once the shelf life wears out, it gets tossed up at a discounted price in the market place.

As for Megaman 9 and 10 - that cost them probably $500 to make... and that's probably aiming high. They're using outdated technology, and technology they've had since Megaman was first programmed. Do you think Megaman's engine has changed at all? His sprites (aside from a few pixels here and there), or hit detection or anything like that? No. They've had those engines for 20 years now, so they don't need to reprogram that. That's why Megaman is cheap.

Take the following games: Iron Man 2, DOA Paradise, Prison Break, and Naughty Bear. These games are complete shit and are the biggest flops of 2010. They cost a shit ton of $$ to produce, yet didn't sell enough to make their $$ back on development.

It does matter on making games better in gameplay value and plot/story value. A good story will sell a lot of copies, a great story will want continuations to make a series. Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior/Quest, Suikoden, Drakengard (though I think the 2nd one bombed, the first one was great), Wizardy, Zelda, Mario, Megaman, etc. These games have amazing game play value and the stories evolved into something amazing. If Mario flopped, Nintendo probably would've gotten out of the business, if Final Fantasy never took off, Squaresoft never would have made another game. These companies know what it's like to make a game with compelling stories and have what it takes to make a great game. So it does matter for the game play to be good and to have a good story line. Sure, Contra's story wasn't the greatest, but the game was FUN, and the game play was almost flawless.




I honestly don't care if games or movies require a big budget or not. There's just one thing I care about. If something is big budget, it better be good. I know that The Wizard of Oz from 1939 was really expensive at the time it was made, it's fine as it's really an amazing film. As long as the final result is outstanding(not average), it's fine by me.

I agree. If we're paying good $$ for these things (movies, music, games), we should be giving the opportunity to have something great to entertain us. Not some mediocre hack job of a game that we'll play once and that's it.

[bcks007]

3 to 7 usd should be end consumer price, right ????

Producing millions of Blu-Ray discs should lower the cost of a SL Blu-Ray to 2 usd in my opinion.

DL Blu Rays are more expensive but i think that only MGS4 and GoW3 use that discs ...

Anybody know what to look for, to see what games are dual layer blu-ray? Like on the actual disc? Is there a site listing which ps3 games are dual layer?

[Icarus Moonsight]

Game companies that honestly think the used market hurts their bottom line are economically ignorant and rationally feeble. Of course, they are making an argument (a total BS one at that) for their own unearned personal gain and interest... You're not supposed to see or notice that though. They hope you just except their premise, like some in this thread have already done. You don't need to calculate anything at all because you can dismiss the argument out-of-hand because the premise fails square one.

[eskobar]

Anybody know what to look for, to see what games are dual layer blu-ray? Like on the actual disc? Is there a site listing which ps3 games are dual layer?

I haven't found a site that list all those games that use Dual Layer Blu-Rays because those are very uncommon.

Usually the media lets you know which games have that amount of data .... but if a game like Uncharted 2 was made in a Single Layer Blu-Ray probably any game for PS3 can be done in SL BR disc.

Aside from METAL GEAR SOLID 4 and GOD OF WAR 3, FINAL FANTASY XIII also uses a DL BR disc. :popcorn:

[g00ber]

As long as you can have tangible media in your hand, people will try to buy/sell/trade and do whatever they want with it.

I prefer my hard copy media. That way, I own it, and can do what I wish with it. If they want to change the amount of content I can get if I don't purchase new, so be it. You have the choice to purchase or not, and likely if they do that sort of thing, I may decide not to.

The market will decide whether a product or service passes or fails (just take a look at the PSP Go).

[DreamTR]

DLC games are, from what I've seen (and you can tell me I'm wrong because I'm sure I am) are games that have been out for X amount of time and have stopped selling mass quantities in the stores. Once the shelf life wears out, it gets tossed up at a discounted price in the market place.

As for Megaman 9 and 10 - that cost them probably $500 to make... and that's probably aiming high. They're using outdated technology, and technology they've had since Megaman was first programmed. Do you think Megaman's engine has changed at all? His sprites (aside from a few pixels here and there), or hit detection or anything like that? No. They've had those engines for 20 years now, so they don't need to reprogram that. That's why Megaman is cheap.
.

I seriously doubt it was a total of 20 hours to make Mega Man 9 and 10. LOL! That's considering someone is getting $25 an hour or so. Absolutely impossible.

[Bojay1997]

I seriously doubt it was a total of 20 hours to make Mega Man 9 and 10. LOL! That's considering someone is getting $25 an hour or so. Absolutely impossible.

I believe I read somewhere not too long ago that the development cost for Mega Man 9 was several hundred thousand dollars. It's not like it's a single person or even a few people working on these games. It's still dozens of people, all of whom make professional level salaries and typically get benefits, there's overhead including rent, utilities and equipment, etc....Making games is not cheap and even crappy Wii and DS shovelware can cost $100K or more in development costs.

[Gameguy]

I believe I read somewhere not too long ago that the development cost for Mega Man 9 was several hundred thousand dollars. It's not like it's a single person or even a few people working on these games. It's still dozens of people, all of whom make professional level salaries and typically get benefits, there's overhead including rent, utilities and equipment, etc....Making games is not cheap and even crappy Wii and DS shovelware can cost $100K or more in development costs.
That's still way less than $200 million dollars which is what was mentioned earlier in this thread. I'm pretty sure it was said that modern games cost as much as modern movies, and $200 million was mentioned for modern movies.

[Bojay1997]

I don't know why YOU keep bringing up the manufacturing costs of the physical media. I said the manufacturing costs of the media isn't what affects the price of games because it's the same for both games and movie DVDs, DVDs are priced much cheaper though movies cost the same to make as games.

You've correctly mentioned why they're priced higher, they don't have a theatrical release. Since they aren't able to make as much money as a film, the development studios shouldn't be spending as much on them as a film. HAVE LESS EMPLOYEES!!


I've said it earlier but I guess I need to say it again more clearly. If they aren't making enough money, EMPLOY LESS PEOPLE. Then production costs will be less.



The retail price of Zelda: Spirit Tracks is $39.99. The retail price of Dragon Quest IX: Sentinels of the Starry Skies is $34.99. Why are these games priced cheaper than most new console releases? Did they cost less to produce for some reason? If so, does that mean they suck compared to a new console release? It can't be, they both have a rating of 87% on Metacritic. There's no reason why new games have to be so expensive to produce.

Kane and Lynch 2: Dog Days for PS3 has a retail price of $59.99, it has a rating on Metacritic of 64%. Higher production cost does not mean better product.

Taking your example, why is it that the new Zelda game for the Wii has taken several years to develop and will cost $50 new as opposed to $35 or less for a DS game from the same series? It's because console games have more detailed graphics and play dynamics and do things that portable games simply do not and cannot. If Nintendo just took Zelda for the DS and slapped it on a disc for the Wii at $35, consumers would be pretty upset. Consumers have much higher expectations for the depth and complexity of console games, just like consumers expect much higher quality in a movie they are paying $12 or more to see in a theater compared to something they would see advertiser supported on basic cable as a made for TV movie or a weekly episodic TV show.

This whole argument about having less employees and cutting development costs is absurd. Unless everyone simultaneously agrees that the overall standard for games is going to fall back to the early-90s, it will never happen and frankly as a consumer, I don't want it to happen. If you want cheap games, there is plenty of cheap and good stuff available for download on PSN or Xbox Live. Changing the entire retail model to this stuff would be a huge mistake as I know that I for one would be done with gaming at that point and I suspect many millions of other people would be as well. There is so much compelling entertainment out there today, that expecting everyone to be content with basic games made by small teams is a complete joke. People will always be attracted to big budget impressive looking and sounding entertainment products. Those cost large sums of money to make whether it's a movie, a video game, a TV show or anything else. Sadly, as used game sales continue to grow, those of us who only buy new and never trade-in are going to be stuck paying for DLC and for game demos despite the fact that we pay full boat for the game in the first place.

[Bojay1997]

That's still way less than $200 million dollars which is what was mentioned earlier in this thread. I'm pretty sure it was said that modern games cost as much as modern movies, and $200 million was mentioned for modern movies.

Nobody said that every modern game costs $200 milllion to make. In fact, all games are done for far less than that and I think the most expensive game ever made so far has been GTA IV at around $100 million in development costs. You're also ignoring the fact that Mega Man 9 didn't sell millions of copies. If anything, it was a niche title. As of the last figures I saw for it, it had sold less than 500K total downloads worldwide. Now, that generated something like $5 million in revenue, which translates into maybe $1.5 million in profit best case scenario. While that might be good enough to warrant a sequel, it's not enough to sustain a company the size of Capcom in and of itself.

[SegaAges]

This thread is still going?

It is now on to pricing of games.

Portable games are generally cheaper than console games and they have been since way back when.

Even when the Gameboy was out, games were normally retailing for, what, around $30-$40.

So a game you want to buy is at Gamestop and a used copy if going for $55 and the new one is going for $60. Buy the new one.

Do you want to know why many of the used games at Gamestop are priced like that? Because people will buy them.

Even if you think the price is gouging you, well, that is too bad for you since Gamestop is not losing money from you when another 10,000 people are waiting in line and will pay that just because it is $5 cheaper than getting it new.

Ask anybody who has had a conversation about paying too much for games and they will vouch that a game is worth what people are willing to pay for it.

Why should GameStop charge $25 for a used game that just came out when they can sell it for $55?

Seriously, if you don't like the prices, shop somewhere else. To sit here and say that you have no other options is rather silly. I don't give a fuck what GameStop charges as now-a-days all I ever buy from them are new games (except for every once in awhile when I jump on their buy 2 get 1 deals). If you want good, cheap games, try Gamefly. I buy games from them all the time and their games are always in incredible shape.

I do not see what the issue is here with used game prices.

Also, with new game prices: The price has not changed in years upon years and has actually gone down.

Just because one game sells for more does not mean it is a better game. I bought Project Sylpheed for 360 new for $40 and absolutely love the game. I actually pre-ordered the game. There are games out there for over $40 that are far worse than Project Sylpheed, but I will never know because I don't plan on buying them.

I still do not understand why it is some huge debate. If you don't like the price, don't buy it. There is nothing complex about it. If you truly want the game, pay what the people want, or wait for the inevitable price drop.

[Zthun]

Game companies that honestly think the used market hurts their bottom line are economically ignorant and rationally feeble. Of course, they are making an argument (a total BS one at that) for their own unearned personal gain and interest... You're not supposed to see or notice that though. They hope you just except their premise, like some in this thread have already done. You don't need to calculate anything at all because you can dismiss the argument out-of-hand because the premise fails square one.

That's how a business works. If gaming wasn't profitable, all we would see on the market is hobbyist creating free stuff. Personal gain is how any company works. Companies are built by normal people, they aren't just made out of thin air. They have to make profit to survive.

Nobody in this thread has even come close to answering the original question: why should any game company give a damn about the used game market? They make no profit from used games. Nobody can answer this cause everyone is too focused on 'why are games so expensive, I want cheap shit for nothing cause I'm poor..blah blah..'

[SegaAges]

That's how a business works. If gaming wasn't profitable, all we would see on the market is hobbyist creating free stuff. Personal gain is how any company works. Companies are built by normal people, they aren't just made out of thin air. They have to make profit to survive.

Nobody in this thread has even come close to answering the original question: why should any game company give a damn about the used game market? They make no profit from used games. Nobody can answer this cause everyone is too focused on 'why are games so expensive, I want cheap shit for nothing cause I'm poor..blah blah..'

I can answer that for you.

Game companies care about used games depending on the game. If it is a game they just put out, they would obviously want everybody to buy it new.

If they are prepping for a sequel, as was shown with the super low price of Dead Rising 2: Case Zero, the more publicity a game gets, the better (even if it is a super low price or possibly a price of zero for the game company).

Like if for prepping for Gears of War 3, Gamestop lowered the price of Gears 1 to 4.99, that is publicity for Epic.

So the main answer is that game companies care about used games in a few ways: Some games will fuel the want for the newer game and also help with a small amount of publicity for the newer games, and the game companies to not make an extra profit when the newer games are sold used.

[eskobar]

Its the developer's fault if a game only takes 5 hours to complete it .... that way is more probable that you will go to Gamestop or eBay to sell it in less than a week.

If developers can hold the consumer for at least a month with a good game, its gonna benefit the sales of brand new copies of the game, because usually the first month is when the sales are stronger.

[Bojay1997]

That's how a business works. If gaming wasn't profitable, all we would see on the market is hobbyist creating free stuff. Personal gain is how any company works. Companies are built by normal people, they aren't just made out of thin air. They have to make profit to survive.

Nobody in this thread has even come close to answering the original question: why should any game company give a damn about the used game market? They make no profit from used games. Nobody can answer this cause everyone is too focused on 'why are games so expensive, I want cheap shit for nothing cause I'm poor..blah blah..'

What are you talking about? There is no original question, this is a discussion prompted by a comic pointing out that when you buy a used game, the store makes 100% of the profit whereas when you buy new, the developer and publisher benefit financially and the average consumer could wants both cheap games (i.e. used) but the full range of support and customer service that can only be paid for with new game sales. If the games industry doesn't figure out a way to either reduce used sales or profit from them somehow, it will rapidly decline and collapse. Every used copy of a game that is sold is one less new copy of that same game or a similar game and therefore less revenue to developers and publishers. That's why they care about the used game market.

[Bojay1997]

Its the developer's fault if a game only takes 5 hours to complete it .... that way is more probable that you will go to Gamestop or eBay to sell it in less than a week.

If developers can hold the consumer for at least a month with a good game, its gonna benefit the sales of brand new copies of the game, because usually the first month is when the sales are stronger.

I hate to break it to you, but even games that take 40+ hours to complete often end up traded in to GS within days of release. There are lots of people who have virtually unlimited time and interest in playing new release games.

[Zthun]

I can answer that for you.

Game companies care about used games depending on the game. If it is a game they just put out, they would obviously want everybody to buy it new.

If they are prepping for a sequel, as was shown with the super low price of Dead Rising 2: Case Zero, the more publicity a game gets, the better (even if it is a super low price or possibly a price of zero for the game company).


You really need to think before you just toss a random answer out there.

Dead Rising 2: Case Zero is an XBLA game. It's not a used game. You can't buy it used. Bad example. But your next one:



Like if for prepping for Gears of War 3, Gamestop lowered the price of Gears 1 to 4.99, that is publicity for Epic.

So the main answer is that game companies care about used games in a few ways: Some games will fuel the want for the newer game and also help with a small amount of publicity for the newer games, and the game companies to not make an extra profit when the newer games are sold used.

Often times, people will wait until used copy of the game is in the stores. When you buy used, you usually get $5 off at Gamestop, and if you have the edge card, you save an additional 10%, which slaps off another $5. So you get a 10 dollar discount for a used game. It's not a lot, but if you bought 6 used games, you now have enough money to buy another game. All the while, game companies don't see a lick of profit from this. Unless Gamestop is stocking the worst possible games, used games are just as good as new games. The rest of the world aren't collectors and don't care about the condition of the cases and manuals. Even if Gears 1 spotted interest in the new game, a lot of people will wait to buy a used copy.

[eskobar]

I hate to break it to you, but even games that take 40+ hours to complete often end up traded in to GS within days of release. There are lots of people who have virtually unlimited time and interest in playing new release games.

I know that, but you have to agree that a game that is fun and takes 40 or more hours to complete will have less tendency to be sold at gamestop than one that lasts 5 hours.

I may sound like an employee of fanboy of Naught Dog, but I am still playing Uncharted 2 since i bought it on December 2009 .... and i remember that I sold the first Uncharted after 2 months.

The developers have always a way to increase value for its products.

[Zthun]

What are you talking about? There is no original question, this is a discussion prompted by a comic pointing out that when you buy a used game, the store makes 100% of the profit whereas when you buy new, the developer and publisher benefit financially and the average consumer could wants both cheap games (i.e. used) but the full range of support and customer service that can only be paid for with new game sales. If the games industry doesn't figure out a way to either reduce used sales or profit from them somehow, it will rapidly decline and collapse. Every used copy of a game that is sold is one less new copy of that same game or a similar game and therefore less revenue to developers and publishers. That's why they care about the used game market.

You completely misunderstood my post, which is reasonable, since it could be taken either way.

In the article, THQ states:

"I don't think we really care whether used game buyers are upset because new game buyers get everything. So if used game buyers are upset they don't get the online feature set I don't really have much sympathy for them."

That is what I'm referring to. Why should any company care about the market for used games? Those customers don't buy directly from them and they see no profits from that transaction. Now, there will be penalties from buying used games. I don't blame them any one bit for doing this.

I buy used all the time. This is irritating as hell to me, but I understand why companies will do something like this. Everyone here is just arguing against the decision because of their own personal agenda. Well, big game companies have an agenda as well.

[SegaAges]

You really need to think before you just toss a random answer out there.

Dead Rising 2: Case Zero is an XBLA game. It's not a used game. You can't buy it used. Bad example. But your next one:



Often times, people will wait until used copy of the game is in the stores. When you buy used, you usually get $5 off at Gamestop, and if you have the edge card, you save an additional 10%, which slaps off another $5. So you get a 10 dollar discount for a used game. It's not a lot, but if you bought 6 used games, you now have enough money to buy another game. All the while, game companies don't see a lick of profit from this. Unless Gamestop is stocking the worst possible games, used games are just as good as new games. The rest of the world aren't collectors and don't care about the condition of the cases and manuals. Even if Gears 1 spotted interest in the new game, a lot of people will wait to buy a used copy.

I used that as an example with Dead Rising 2. Look at the average cost of an XBLA game. Most of them, unless XBL is running some super deal, are normally 800 points on up.

Pricing the game at a much lower price point will get more people to get it. Even though Capcom is not making near as much as they could from it, it is gaining publicity for Dead Rising 2.

The point is all about publicity. Let's face it, some people will pirate games when they have the means to pay for the games, but do it because they can and it is cheaper.

And also since you lumped it all into "a lot of people will wait to buy a used one", then I will lump it as well, "if you are waiting to buy a used one, wait to buy a new one".

You can't tell a person to think before they post a random answer and then just lump all of people's gaming habits into a single sentence when you do not know that for a fact. I don't wait to buy used ones, so that is a bad example. Just using a blanket statement like that is not the best thing to do.

[Zthun]

I used that as an example with Dead Rising 2. Look at the average cost of an XBLA game. Most of them, unless XBL is running some super deal, are normally 800 points on up.

Pricing the game at a much lower price point will get more people to get it. Even though Capcom is not making near as much as they could from it, it is gaining publicity for Dead Rising 2.


And that's why that was a terrible example. Capcom is still gaining profits from XBLA games. They don't see a cent from a used game. I can see your point for creating publicity, but it's a moot point since the new game will eventually see itself on the used game bin eventually.


The point is all about publicity. Let's face it, some people will pirate games when they have the means to pay for the games, but do it because they can and it is cheaper.

Agreed.



And also since you lumped it all into "a lot of people will wait to buy a used one", then I will lump it as well, "if you are waiting to buy a used one, wait to buy a new one".

This makes no sense. I can't even explain this. You basically said what I said.


You can't tell a person to think before they post a random answer and then just lump all of people's gaming habits into a single sentence when you do not know that for a fact. I don't wait to buy used ones. Just using a blanket statement like that is not the best thing to do.

I said to think cause your examples were bad. I didn't lump everyone's gaming habits. I said MANY people will wait to buy a used game. That is what companies are trying to combat. Not everyone is a hardcore gamer with 100+ titles in their library. A lot of people will buy the games at gamestop, play them until they get board with it, then trade them in for another used game.

[Gameguy]

Taking your example, why is it that the new Zelda game for the Wii has taken several years to develop and will cost $50 new as opposed to $35 or less for a DS game from the same series? It's because console games have more detailed graphics and play dynamics and do things that portable games simply do not and cannot.
Pretty much, and honestly that's what I was getting at. I really don't care about super realistic graphics, I have a DS but no current console. If they can make enough money making flashy console releases then go for it, if they can't make a profit then cut back. I'd rather they cut back then bitch about used game sales killing their profits.


If you want cheap games, there is plenty of cheap and good stuff available for download on PSN or Xbox Live.
I thought that the whole argument was that new games need to cost $60 to be good, I guess games can be good for less money too. Why not release a new game for $40-$50 and sell more new copies?


Changing the entire retail model to this stuff would be a huge mistake as I know that I for one would be done with gaming at that point and I suspect many millions of other people would be as well. There is so much compelling entertainment out there today, that expecting everyone to be content with basic games made by small teams is a complete joke. People will always be attracted to big budget impressive looking and sounding entertainment products. Those cost large sums of money to make whether it's a movie, a video game, a TV show or anything else. Sadly, as used game sales continue to grow, those of us who only buy new and never trade-in are going to be stuck paying for DLC and for game demos despite the fact that we pay full boat for the game in the first place.
I agree that people are attracted to big budget stuff with flashy visuals over substance, it makes me sad. Most new films seem to rely heavily on CGI. I really hate CGI unless the whole film is animated, it just looks fake and ruins the movie for me. If they spent the money on actual stunts(like Jackie Chan movies in the 80's/90's) then fine, I'll more likely enjoy it.

I'd also rather see Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai from 1954 than the current movie Step Up 3-D. If Seven Samurai got rereleased in theaters, I'd really consider seeing it.


Nobody said that every modern game costs $200 milllion to make. In fact, all games are done for far less than that and I think the most expensive game ever made so far has been GTA IV at around $100 million in development costs. You're also ignoring the fact that Mega Man 9 didn't sell millions of copies. If anything, it was a niche title. As of the last figures I saw for it, it had sold less than 500K total downloads worldwide. Now, that generated something like $5 million in revenue, which translates into maybe $1.5 million in profit best case scenario. While that might be good enough to warrant a sequel, it's not enough to sustain a company the size of Capcom in and of itself.
Ok I found the quotes again, but I was slightly off with how I remembered them. I seemed to combine 2 separate quotes and put them together in my mind. The first quote does say that the cost to make movies and games are now comparable, I took that to mean that the costs are close to the same.

As for Mega Man, I never said current games needed to go back the the 8 bit era(and I can't find any current sales information so I'll take your word for it). I just said that they could cut costs by making games slightly less graphic intensive if they can't make enough profit. Did any of the Mega Man games sell more than 500,000 copies even when they were current on the NES? Mega Man games have always been niche titles, which is why most of the NES versions aren't dirt common to find.

By the way, as of June 2010, New Super Mario Bros Wii has sold 15.81 million copies. Pretty sure that's an older styled game with less intensive graphics than a new PS3 game.


LOL, the COST to make a movie. Not the cost to make a DVD. Cost to make movies...some are $150 million PLUS. That is what I mean. The costs to make movies and some games are comparable now.

Why does it cost $200 million to make some movies now?

[Hep038]

That's how a business works. If gaming wasn't profitable, all we would see on the market is hobbyist creating free stuff. Personal gain is how any company works. Companies are built by normal people, they aren't just made out of thin air. They have to make profit to survive.

Nobody in this thread has even come close to answering the original question: why should any game company give a damn about the used game market? They make no profit from used games. Nobody can answer this cause everyone is too focused on 'why are games so expensive, I want cheap shit for nothing cause I'm poor..blah blah..'


Sl1ence answered your question.

"People trade in used to get new all the time." He was talking about cars and the analogy goes just as well with games. Also if a used game is sold 10 times and the DLC map pack is bought 10 times I do not think you will see the game company complaining then.

[Jaruff]

Person A buys the game new. Person A is obtaining a license to use said game for his/her personal enjoyment.

One day, Person A decides to sell the game. Person A sells the game to Person B. The issue is this: when Person A sells the game to Person B, is he/she also selling the license to use the game?

PC applications (including) have come with licenses and serial numbers for well over a decade now. You can usually transfer the license to another user but some companies have decided to prevent this and force Person B to purchase a new license. You are buying a license, after all, so the argument comes down to whether you can resell a license.

IMO, this is not an industry issue but a legal issue. The European Union has great consumer protection laws (ex: The guy who got a refund from Amazon when Linux support was removed from the PS3 by claiming a feature he purchased was removed) and we need the same type of laws in the US. This would prevent any company, not just software publishers, from removing features from an item under any circumstance or face legal action. This should also apply for digital content, as I personally believe consumers should have the right to transfer ownership of any digital or physical item that they own.

Of course, this will probably never happen because corporations have extensive legal teams and lobbyists to fight against needed change.

Well, there's my rant.

[Zthun]

Sl1ence answered your question.

"People trade in used to get new all the time." He was talking about cars and the analogy goes just as well with games. Also if a used game is sold 10 times and the DLC map pack is bought 10 times I do not think you will see the game company complaining then.

This is a much better answer. The only flaw here is that they're trading in new games or used games to buy new games. They're still buying new games.

So what would then be the advantage to buying the same DLC for one copy of the game. Would you rather see prices lowered on new games, but have the DLC go up in price?

[SegaAges]

And that's why that was a terrible example. Capcom is still gaining profits from XBLA games. They don't see a cent from a used game. I can see your point for creating publicity, but it's a moot point since the new game will eventually see itself on the used game bin eventually.



Agreed.




This makes no sense. I can't even explain this. You basically said what I said.



I said to think cause your examples were bad. I didn't lump everyone's gaming habits. I said MANY people will wait to buy a used game. That is what companies are trying to combat. Not everyone is a hardcore gamer with 100+ titles in their library. A lot of people will buy the games at gamestop, play them until they get board with it, then trade them in for another used game.

Ok, fair enough.

[Bojay1997]

Pretty much, and honestly that's what I was getting at. I really don't care about super realistic graphics, I have a DS but no current console. If they can make enough money making flashy console releases then go for it, if they can't make a profit then cut back. I'd rather they cut back then bitch about used game sales killing their profits.


I thought that the whole argument was that new games need to cost $60 to be good, I guess games can be good for less money too. Why not release a new game for $40-$50 and sell more new copies?


I agree that people are attracted to big budget stuff with flashy visuals over substance, it makes me sad. Most new films seem to rely heavily on CGI. I really hate CGI unless the whole film is animated, it just looks fake and ruins the movie for me. If they spent the money on actual stunts(like Jackie Chan movies in the 80's/90's) then fine, I'll more likely enjoy it.

I'd also rather see Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai from 1954 than the current movie Step Up 3-D. If Seven Samurai got rereleased in theaters, I'd really consider seeing it.


Ok I found the quotes again, but I was slightly off with how I remembered them. I seemed to combine 2 separate quotes and put them together in my mind. The first quote does say that the cost to make movies and games are now comparable, I took that to mean that the costs are close to the same.

As for Mega Man, I never said current games needed to go back the the 8 bit era(and I can't find any current sales information so I'll take your word for it). I just said that they could cut costs by making games slightly less graphic intensive if they can't make enough profit. Did any of the Mega Man games sell more than 500,000 copies even when they were current on the NES? Mega Man games have always been niche titles, which is why most of the NES versions aren't dirt common to find.

By the way, as of June 2010, New Super Mario Bros Wii has sold 15.81 million copies. Pretty sure that's an older styled game with less intensive graphics than a new PS3 game.


I'm sorry, but your conception of the video game industry and how the business works is simplistic to the point of being laughable. Many developers and publishers have trouble making money on the DS regardless of how much they spend on development. Piracy is a huge issue as are used sales on that platform. Nobody said games have to be $60 to be good. However, as you yourself pointed out, a very expensive entertainment product can be great like Toy Story 3. On the other hand, sometimes, the investment will be made and what seems like a foolproof concept or piece of IP falls flat. See for example Prince of Persia the recent film from the same company as Toy Story 3.

The cost of making films and games are comparable. The average budget of a top game title is $10-$25 million, the average cost of a typical wide release film is $25-$50 million. Not identical, but certainly within the same ballpark. Of course, you will always have the $100 million games and the $200 million blockbuster movies, but those are generally exceptions rather than the rule.

I also enjoy independent and lower budget films and independent games. That doesn't mean I don't also like blockbuster films and big budget games. The two things are not necessarily incompatible.

New Super Mario Bros. may look like a classic game, but it's development cost was over ten million dollars. Don't fool yourself, making great games in the classic style is not cheap, especially when you are building in on-line and multiplayer. I would encourage you to spend some time with the annual reports from companies like Nintendo which are available on-line and you will start to understand that making games that look classic is not the same as making games cheaply.

[portnoyd]

Although this has spin wildly beyond the original topic, I'd like to add that I picked up RDR used from Gamestop today, but only because I got the LE for the normal used price. Sure, the code was used but now my collectorness has another LE.

[Gameguy]

I'm sorry, but your conception of the video game industry and how the business works is simplistic to the point of being laughable. Many developers and publishers have trouble making money on the DS regardless of how much they spend on development. Piracy is a huge issue as are used sales on that platform. Nobody said games have to be $60 to be good. However, as you yourself pointed out, a very expensive entertainment product can be great like Toy Story 3. On the other hand, sometimes, the investment will be made and what seems like a foolproof concept or piece of IP falls flat. See for example Prince of Persia the recent film from the same company as Toy Story 3.
Piracy and used sales have always been around, I can see them wanting to stop piracy but I really don't see a problem with used sales. If people can't get anything for their old games, they'll stop buying them unless they're dirt cheap. There will always be some people who just don't care like the people who just donate stuff to thrift stores, but it will affect the buying habbits of a big chunk of people.

Prince of Persia was made by Jerry Bruckheimer Films, Toy Story 3 was made by Pixar Animation Studios. They just had the same distributor. I honestly can't remember a bad Pixar movie. :)


The cost of making films and games are comparable. The average budget of a top game title is $10-$25 million, the average cost of a typical wide release film is $25-$50 million. Not identical, but certainly within the same ballpark. Of course, you will always have the $100 million games and the $200 million blockbuster movies, but those are generally exceptions rather than the rule.

I also enjoy independent and lower budget films and independent games. That doesn't mean I don't also like blockbuster films and big budget games. The two things are not necessarily incompatible.

New Super Mario Bros. may look like a classic game, but it's development cost was over ten million dollars. Don't fool yourself, making great games in the classic style is not cheap, especially when you are building in on-line and multiplayer. I would encourage you to spend some time with the annual reports from companies like Nintendo which are available on-line and you will start to understand that making games that look classic is not the same as making games cheaply.
It seems I was a bit misinformed about the production costs, sorry about that.

As long as something is good, I'll support it. If it's good, it should still make money. New Super Mario Bros Wii was selling for $49.99 when first released, it's less than $60. It still sold lots of copies and made good money. I don't see Nintendo barely making a profit.

[Bojay1997]

Piracy and used sales have always been around, I can see them wanting to stop piracy but I really don't see a problem with used sales. If people can't get anything for their old games, they'll stop buying them unless they're dirt cheap. There will always be some people who just don't care like the people who just donate stuff to thrift stores, but it will affect the buying habbits of a big chunk of people.

Prince of Persia was made by Jerry Bruckheimer Films, Toy Story 3 was made by Pixar Animation Studios. They just had the same distributor. I honestly can't remember a bad Pixar movie. :)


It seems I was a bit misinformed about the production costs, sorry about that.

As long as something is good, I'll support it. If it's good, it should still make money. New Super Mario Bros Wii was selling for $49.99 when first released, it's less than $60. It still sold lots of copies and made good money. I don't see Nintendo barely making a profit.

Piracy and used games sales have never been at the level they are today. It used to be that the only place you could buy used console games was swap meets, yard sales and the classifieds. In the late-80s, you started to have some video game chains selling used, but never large retailers and Gamestop was just a small national chain at that point competing with EB and other small national chains. Piracy really didn't take off on consoles until the Playstation. It has really only been in the last few years where used has outstripped new sales and piracy has been incredibly easy via broadband. Nowadays, many large retailers have used game trade-in programs and sell them both in-store and on-line, including America's largest retailer, Walmart.

Both Prince of Persia and Toy Story 3 are films from the Walt Disney Company. Pixar is a wholly owned division of Disney and Prince of Persia was produced and distributed (i.e. paid for entirely) by Disney. Jerry Bruckheimer Films is just a production entity.

Nintendo has actually had financial problems in the last two quarters, primarily because of the weakness of the US Dollar versus the Yen and a decline in DS game sales. Should they start firing people and assigning fewer people to make games because they aren't as profitable as they were in 2007? Or should they try to get more creative and increase game prices or charge for DLC and demos? I don't know, but I also know for a fact that everything that's good doesn't always make money. There are tons of great films that will never make their production costs back. Similarly, there are many great games that will never turn a profit. Being good does not always mean being financially successful.

[DreamTR]

[QUOTE=Gameguy;1761350]

It seems I was a bit misinformed about the production costs, sorry about that.

QUOTE]


Production was hinted as the main costs many many many many many times over in this thread. That's another reason why I had to laugh at the $500 Mega Man 9 and 10 comment, I mean, it's expensive to release ANYTHING these days...

[Gameguy]

Both Prince of Persia and Toy Story 3 are films from the Walt Disney Company. Pixar is a wholly owned division of Disney and Prince of Persia was produced and distributed (i.e. paid for entirely) by Disney. Jerry Bruckheimer Films is just a production entity.
They were made by different people from different studios(Pixar is a studio owned by Disney, they have other divisions too) which is why they vary in quality. By your logic, Studio Ghibli films should also be considered Disney films because they're distributed by Disney in North America.

As for piracy, it probably is worse now as everyone has a computer with a 500GB+ hard drive and a CD/DVD burner as well as high speed internet access. If people have access to technology, they'll use it to their advantage as much as possible.

I honestly don't care about this topic anymore. There's plenty of reasons people can choose to blame low sales on, I really don't care. All I know is that I'm not willing to pay big bucks for a game if I can't get any of it back later. I'm already reluctant to buy DS games because I can barely get $5-$10 for a used title.


Production was hinted as the main costs many many many many many times over in this thread.
You made it sound like new games cost $150 million+ to make, not $10-25 million.

I do agree that it wasn't that cheap to make Mega Man 9, it looks old but it's not an NES game played on an emulator. It just looks like an NES game.

I still stand by my opinion that if game studios can't make enough profit, they have to find ways to cut production costs. If they can't do that, the studios will go bankrupt and the industry will crash.

[j_factor]

I see a lot of games get released for $60 and then be marked down to $20 just a few months later. How many people don't buy games at full price just because they're waiting for a price drop? I know I do that a lot. Mirror's Edge is one example. It was $60 and didn't sell very well, so they slashed the price to $20 rather quickly. Wouldn't they have been better off just releasing it at $30-40 from the get-go? I think when a game comes out at a lower price from the start, it is more perceived as a good value, whereas a game getting rapid mark-downs looks bad. I'm not arguing that all games should be cheaper, but why does there need to be a "default" price that the vast majority of games come out at? I think they would do better to assess the price point of each game on a case-by-case basis and allow them to vary more. Production cost has been brought up as the reason for games being priced where they are, but I strongly doubt all $60 games have even remotely comparable production costs.


But this feels like the "next item on the list" that can be addressed toward the goal of having all consumers spend $60 on any full game they want to play. I don't remember much angst about the used game market back in the PS1 days when Gamestop was still thriving, but a mod chip and a CD burner could get you games for free.

I think this is right on the money. I've been buying used games since I was a child. Only in the past few years have I seen people from game companies crying about it hurting their profits.

I'd also like to say that it's partly the game companies' own faults for not offering "catalog" sales. Book publishers, record labels, and movie companies don't limit their offerings to their most recent releases, so why should game companies? Less than a year after its release, I couldn't find Valkyria Chronicles anywhere. I bought it used, because I had no other option. I guess I'm killing Sega.