Can $60 Games Survive? [Slashdot]

[DP ServBot]

http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/ff0kMKNLMqFnwsYzKijp4EsvbNA/0/di (http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/ff0kMKNLMqFnwsYzKijp4EsvbNA/0/da)
http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/ff0kMKNLMqFnwsYzKijp4EsvbNA/1/di (http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/ff0kMKNLMqFnwsYzKijp4EsvbNA/1/da)
donniebaseball23 writes "Game budgets continue to rise with each successive console generation, and with the Wii U launching later this year, the industry is on the cusp of yet another costly transition. Publishers have been regularly charging $60 for games this generation, but that model simply cannot survive, Nexon America CEO Daniel Kim said in an interview. 'I think at some point the console makers have to make a decision about how closed or open they're going to be to the different models that are going to be emerging,' Kim remarked. 'Today it's free-to-play, and I'm convinced that that one is going to continue to flourish and expand into other genres and other categories, but there may be something else completely and entirely different that comes out that again changes the industry.' He cautioned, 'If your mind is just set on keeping the current model of buy a game for $60, play for 40 hours, buy another game for $60, play for 40 hours, that model I think is eventually going to change. It's going to have to change.'"http://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png (http://twitter.com/home?status=Can+%2460+Games+Survive%3F%3A+http%3A% 2F%2Fbit.ly%2FxBjHYi)http://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png (http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgames.slashdot.org%2Fsto ry%2F12%2F03%2F13%2F227201%2Fcan-60-games-survive%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfac ebook)http://www.gstatic.com/images/icons/gplus-16.png (http://plus.google.com/share?url=http://games.slashdot.org/story/12/03/13/227201/can-60-games-survive?utm_source=slashdot&utm_medium=googleplus)

Read more of this story (http://games.slashdot.org/story/12/03/13/227201/can-60-games-survive?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&utm_medium=feed) at Slashdot.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Slashdot/slashdotGames/~4/xECnHcfPeVk

More... (http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdotGames/~3/xECnHcfPeVk/can-60-games-survive)

[kedawa]

I can't bring myself to pay $60 for any game, especially when it'll be $40 a week later.

[The 1 2 P]

I wouldn't be surprised if publishers again try to raise game prices to $65 or $70 each. That would obviously turn alot of people off but the publishers rationale would be "well they are already paying more than that for special editions and collectors editions so why not?" But I think most of us are in agreement that they need more pricing models next gen instead of the "$60 for every new retail game" model because most short(7 hours or less) single player only no multiplayer games(like Wanted) aren't worth $60.

[Jehusephat]

Why do I feel like he's suggesting that games of the future will consist entirely of DLC, with an inexpensive "core package" making up the initial purchase instead of an actual game? In the future, we'll buy what will essentially be expandable demos and pick and choose how much of the actual game we'd like to pay for and play. That sounds like a cure for my gaming habit, though I honestly don't think many people would mind that model.

[norkusa]

I paid $89.99 + tax for SNES Super Street Fighter II at EB the week it was released. I'm actually surprised that games have been $50-$60 for so long.

I never pay more than $20 for new games, so it won't bother me if they raise the prices another $5 or $10.

[VideoGameRescue]

I won't pay full price anymore especially when they sell you the game $60 and that same day they release extra content you have to pay even more to play. I'm sorry that's just greedy. I'll wait a week or two and pay $40 maybe.

[Oobgarm]

Unless it's something I have to have right away, which isn't much anymore these days, it's silly to spend $60 on games when they go on sale pretty much right after they come out.

Even if prices go up, they'll still go on sale.

[thegamezmaster]

Seems to me their pricing themselves out of the business. Meaning they don't realize the average person just can't afford sky high prices. They don't have deep pockets, families to feed and bills to pay first. That's why at least everyone I know that's into video games either waits for affordable price drops, and another reason buying used games at a cheaper price is a more viable option. Plus it makes more people turn to pirating games. I don't do that or support that as it hurts the honest buyers. That's what hurt gaming since the early eighties. Look at what happened to Atari and Commodore computers back then. I think the powers that be need to get more realistic about what the average gamers can afford, not how much more can they squeeze out of gamers. Seems to me, from a business sense, the lower the cost, the more they'll sell. As far as DLC, just makes me long for the good old days when you bought a game for $20 to $30 you got everything in one game. DLC's just another ploy to squeeze gamers to dead or debt. And that's all I gots to say about that.

[Rob2600]

they don't realize the average person just can't afford sky high prices. They don't have deep pockets, families to feed and bills to pay first. That's why at least everyone I know that's into video games either waits for affordable price drops, and another reason buying used games at a cheaper price is a more viable option.

The "people can't afford things and struggle to feed their families" argument doesn't really work in a world where hundreds of millions of people are buying $200 smartphones every year, paying $100 mobile phone bills every month, paying $8 a month for Netflix, paying $15 for movie tickets, upgrading to Blu-ray players, buying Amazon Kindles, and buying a new $500+ iPad every couple of years.

Instead, maybe "hardcore" video gamers are just cheap.

[skaar]

Welcome to DLC Hell, kids.


The "people can't afford things and struggle to feed their families" argument doesn't really work in a world where hundreds of millions of people are buying $200 smartphones every year, paying $100 mobile phone bills every month, paying $8 a month for Netflix, paying $15 for movie tickets, upgrading to Blu-ray players, buying Amazon Kindles, and buying a new $500+ iPad every couple of years.

Instead, maybe "hardcore" video gamers are just cheap.

Also this.

[Gooch3008]

anyone who complains about $60 video games in 2012 is LOLpoor

Quite a few titles are worth way more than their day one asking price, by far.

[xelement5x]

anyone who complains about $60 video games in 2012 is LOLpoor

Quite a few titles are worth way more than their day one asking price, by far.

Classy

There are also even more titles that aren't worth a fraction of their day one asking price.



I originally only bought new, but now I almost exclusively buy my games used since prices have gotten so high. I'll occasionally buy new games on clearance, or if it's something I know will be an extremely limited print run (Hyperdimensional Neptunia Mk2 Limited Edition I'm looking at you), but most stuff is hardly worth it anymore.

[Shulamana]

This has always seemed like simple high school economics to me, they (the publishers and retail stores) charge the most they think first day game buyers will be willing to pay for a game, and then catch as many price/income groups as they can all the way down to the clearance bin.

[DOAsaturn]

I used to buy games new and first day far more often. Lately I've mostly waited for clearance or been drawn to budget priced games before buying A+ titles. It's amazing what you can find when you go down this road - little diamonds in the rough that you would've passed over before. I've gotten a new appreciation for other developers and publishers as well as genres I wasn't too enthused about before when I was stuck in a Day one, full price buying cycle.

I think $50 is fair, we got used to a nice, flat $50 price point for top tier titles in the last generation. Why it was boosted to $60 (and still hasn't dropped, despite loads of additional paid DLC options) never made any sense to me. While I'll never go to iOS gaming (I do have an ipod with games, but only play when I have nothing else to do) I have transitioned more to the handheld market. At least the 3DS and Vita (once you get set up after the relatively expensive buy-in) offer full fledged gaming at a more friendly user cost.

[Trumpman]

I used to buy games new and first day far more often. Lately I've mostly waited for clearance or been drawn to budget priced games before buying A+ titles. It's amazing what you can find when you go down this road - little diamonds in the rough that you would've passed over before. I've gotten a new appreciation for other developers and publishers as well as genres I wasn't too enthused about before when I was stuck in a Day one, full price buying cycle.

I think $50 is fair, we got used to a nice, flat $50 price point for top tier titles in the last generation. Why it was boosted to $60 (and still hasn't dropped, despite loads of additional paid DLC options) never made any sense to me. While I'll never go to iOS gaming (I do have an ipod with games, but only play when I have nothing else to do) I have transitioned more to the handheld market. At least the 3DS and Vita (once you get set up after the relatively expensive buy-in) offer full fledged gaming at a more friendly user cost.

Why it was boosted to $60? Have you seen the budgets of AAA games this generation? Games like Skyrim and GTA IV cost require nine figure budgets to make. Most games need to sell more than a million copies at $60 just to be profitable.

[kedawa]

I paid $89.99 + tax for SNES Super Street Fighter II at EB the week it was released.

Seriously? I payed $60 for it at launch, and I'm in Canada.
Every SF game for SNES was cheaper than the one before it.

[DOAsaturn]

Why it was boosted to $60? Have you seen the budgets of AAA games this generation? Games like Skyrim and GTA IV cost require nine figure budgets to make. Most games need to sell more than a million copies at $60 just to be profitable.

Yeah - but the few games that cost as much as a blockbuster movie usually tromp out a heaping helping of DLC. When you have that much extra revenue (assuming the DLC is part of the original budget and development - which I assume in most cases it is) it's still reasonable to expect a $50 price point.

Even if we give a pass on $60 for the AAA titles, there are plenty more that just take advantage of that new bloated "standard". Sports games, in my opinion, are the biggest culprit - expensive license or not. Cut a few dollars off and you might generate many new buyers - who will then buy your DLC as well. I'm willing to bet plenty more people buy the next Madden or Call of Duty if, say, they launch it ten dollars less. Look at it this way, if CoD 6 sells 5 million copies at $60 per, it made $300 mil. If CoD 6 sells 6 million at $50 per, it made $300 mil and added a million more people who will have the opportunity to buy DLC.

[The 1 2 P]

The "people can't afford things and struggle to feed their families" argument doesn't really work in a world where hundreds of millions of people are buying $200 smartphones every year, paying $100 mobile phone bills every month, paying $8 a month for Netflix, paying $15 for movie tickets, upgrading to Blu-ray players, buying Amazon Kindles, and buying a new $500+ iPad every couple of years.

Thats a good point, which could be added on to mine from my original post where developers have little sympathy for raising the standard $60 price point because some gamers already pay more than that for collectors and special editions. I also use that cell phone bill analogy when people complain about XBL's yearly fee(since no one really needs to pay the full retail $60 price to get it and even if they did thats way cheaper than paying $50-$100 a month). But I still don't feel that all new games need to be priced at $60, regardless or how much(or little) content they have.


Instead, maybe "hardcore" video gamers are just cheap.

Of course we are. Why else would I have started that clearance video game thread four years ago.

[eskobar]

Yes, many $60 games are worth buying on its release week/month; I am very selective about what games at that price, but they are fairly constant.

In the fall of 2011 I purchased a few $60 in a row: Dark Souls, Uncharted 3 and Skyrim and they worth every penny i paid for them :popcorn:

[norkusa]

Seriously? I payed $60 for it at launch, and I'm in Canada.
Every SF game for SNES was cheaper than the one before it.

Yeah, I even think I still have the receipt too. Not 100% certain that it was EB though...it could have been Babages. And it was at the mall, so I wouldn't be surprised if I overpaid but I could have sworn that was the normal launch price here.

[Gameguy]

The "people can't afford things and struggle to feed their families" argument doesn't really work in a world where hundreds of millions of people are buying $200 smartphones every year, paying $100 mobile phone bills every month, paying $8 a month for Netflix, paying $15 for movie tickets, upgrading to Blu-ray players, buying Amazon Kindles, and buying a new $500+ iPad every couple of years.
The thing is after people spend their money on all those things, they won't have that much left to spend on some $60 video game. There's just so much more that people would rather spend their money on instead of a new video game, whatever is left won't be spent on a game at full price. I don't have any of that stuff and I still don't buy new games, I'd rather spend my money buying lots of old games instead of one new one. Maybe I'm just a bit cheap, but I don't think most people are cheap for not buying new games at full price.

[PROTOTYPE]

Your comments says it all, I buy used or on sale. That is what killing the game industry. With it being so easy now to wait and buy used on-line, You really are crazy to buy new. Unless its a game that will stay high in price. Sorry, but I see very bad things ahead. DLC will be the future. It will kill the used game market, it will kill piracy. I already see it with kids today, They don't really care if they have the case, manual, disc. They already started it with the manuals [ see disc or on-line for it ].. They will at first offer cheaper full DLC games, then bringing then back to full price. The rumor about the 720 having no disc drive, maybe that was just testing the gaming Community? :(

[Gamevet]

Seems to me their pricing themselves out of the business. Meaning they don't realize the average person just can't afford sky high prices. They don't have deep pockets, families to feed and bills to pay first. That's why at least everyone I know that's into video games either waits for affordable price drops, and another reason buying used games at a cheaper price is a more viable option. Plus it makes more people turn to pirating games. I don't do that or support that as it hurts the honest buyers. That's what hurt gaming since the early eighties. Look at what happened to Atari and Commodore computers back then. I think the powers that be need to get more realistic about what the average gamers can afford, not how much more can they squeeze out of gamers. Seems to me, from a business sense, the lower the cost, the more they'll sell. As far as DLC, just makes me long for the good old days when you bought a game for $20 to $30 you got everything in one game. DLC's just another ploy to squeeze gamers to dead or debt. And that's all I gots to say about that.


The Atari and Commodore computers are not good examples. They made their money off of hardware sales and the few titles they published themselves. The 3rd party publishers may have had a hard time dealing with it, but it didn't stop the C64 from having over 10,000 titles. Back then, if a computer title sold 50,000 copies, it was considered gold. They didn't take big risks with making those games, since it was usually a couple of guys working from their homes. Today, it's a different story, and that's why indie games are being backed by Apple and MS, because they are low-risk and the returns are much higher should a title sell well.

[Ryudo]

Lower the prices to 40$ and that way make up the difference in volume. It's a simple tactic that has made places like Walmart very successful. DVD's are cheap and people buy them by the boat load.

[j_factor]

Why it was boosted to $60? Have you seen the budgets of AAA games this generation? Games like Skyrim and GTA IV cost require nine figure budgets to make. Most games need to sell more than a million copies at $60 just to be profitable.

The $60 price point was introduced with the Xbox 360 launch -- which of those games had such high budgets? Most games are not Skyrim and GTA IV. Those are the exception, not the rule. And I'd have no problem with just those games having a higher price point.

Those HD remasters of last-gen games that are all the rage right now look pretty good. Easily on par with the more average games in the PS3/360 library IMO. I wonder how much it cost to give them the HD treatment; I'm guessing not much.

[Gamevet]

The HD remasters are priced at $40. If they were $30 I'd be more inclined to buy them.

[skaar]

Yeah, I even think I still have the receipt too. Not 100% certain that it was EB though...it could have been Babages. And it was at the mall, so I wouldn't be surprised if I overpaid but I could have sworn that was the normal launch price here.

It was $109 @ A&B sound launch day because they were the last place in town that hadn't sold out. I used to pay nearly $100 for RPGs and that was in 90s dollars. I don't whine about $60 for the two games a year I buy at that price.

[Yago]

$60 is a bit high for a game. However, when I was a kid in the late 70's and early 80's some of the big Atari 2600 releases like Defender and others were $40-$50. Heck, a new Atari 2600 cost $200 and a new Intellivision was roughly $300.00. I have a TV Guide with an article on games and has all the prices in it for consoles and games. So today, in comparison you are not paying that much more than you were when the first consoles hit the market.

I get the Higher budgets and costs to make games but then again, they are also making a larger profit as well. If they don't make a certain profit the game publishers cry. Do these idiots have bank accounts with Bank of America? No, $60.00 a game will not work and they will actually lose money on new releases as more people will buy at a cheaper price.

I mostly buy used. Which then again, means the publishers are losing money. If they released a new title at a reasonable price, I would buy new.

[Griking]

I wouldn't be surprised if publishers again try to raise game prices to $65 or $70 each. That would obviously turn alot of people off but the publishers rationale would be "well they are already paying more than that for special editions and collectors editions so why not?" But I think most of us are in agreement that they need more pricing models next gen instead of the "$60 for every new retail game" model because most short(7 hours or less) single player only no multiplayer games(like Wanted) aren't worth $60.

If game prices rise again I think that it'll be a boom for indy developers who are selling games for $10 that may not have photo realistic graphics but are fun as hell to play.


I won't pay full price anymore especially when they sell you the game $60 and that same day they release extra content you have to pay even more to play. I'm sorry that's just greedy. I'll wait a week or two and pay $40 maybe.

You're at least the second person in this thread to have said this. Perhaps its just where I live but I don't tend to see the 'good' games drop in price by a third in only a week. It generally takes at least a month for prices to drop, sometimes longer if its a really good game. Christ, Skyrim has been out how long now and it still hasn't dropped below its $59.99 release price yet unless you luck out and find a temporary sale somewhere.


The "people can't afford things and struggle to feed their families" argument doesn't really work in a world where hundreds of millions of people are buying $200 smartphones every year, paying $100 mobile phone bills every month, paying $8 a month for Netflix, paying $15 for movie tickets, upgrading to Blu-ray players, buying Amazon Kindles, and buying a new $500+ iPad every couple of years.

Sure people have these things but many are cutting other expenses to do so. A lot of the people that I know of who subscribe to Netflix have dropped their cable subscriptions. So yeah, they're paying $8 a month now but that's instead of $80. I have a $70 a month cell phone bill but I dropped my home phone service when I got it. I suppose there's those who have and those who have not. I just happen to think that there's currently more have nots out there at the moment then there has been in a while.

[PROTOTYPE]

Yea, you guys are not getting it. yes, games were around the same price back then. But, there is a big difference from back then to now. We have access to games everywhere, here's is my point. I have bought new and used games in the last 6 months on the Average price between 10.00 to 30.00 at most. games like final fantasy 13-2 ,Alan wake, duke nuken forever yea I know 10.00 , Rage, halo Anniversary,uncharted 3 ,the list goes on and on. XBOX 360 to PS3 All you have to look at, is how many sales of used games there are. Then you have piracy, then DLC games, the cost to make games are way higher. ect.. Oh, like he said there also a recession going on too. Will the 60 dollar game survive? yes, as a DLC most likely. Sorry, when that happens for me... its GAME OVER. :|

[Griking]

I've probably spent about $50 for new games in the past few months as well. The difference is that I purchased about a dozen really cool indy games via Steam instead of a single big publisher game. Fun is fun regardless of who makes it IMO but I bet that I'll get a lot more play time out of my dozen games than any single game on the market (outside of Skyrim maybe). I know that this isn't everyone's cup of tea but I do believe that there's a rising amount of people spending their money smarter like this and that large publishers would be foolish to ignore it.

[Nes]

I paid $89.99 + tax for SNES Super Street Fighter II at EB the week it was released. I'm actually surprised that games have been $50-$60 for so long.

I never pay more than $20 for new games, so it won't bother me if they raise the prices another $5 or $10.

I remember begging my mom for SNES Street Fighter II (not super) and ended up getting it for my birthday at $69.95.

Really, though, with the prices of games today, I'm happy sticking to the classics. The Nintendo 64 tried to keep their games at $60 and under (instead of the frequent $70 pricepoint of many SNES games). Toward the end of the N64 lifespan, they finally got the price down to mostly $50 (recall the cartridge games are inherently going to be more expensive to manufacture). The Gamecube finally brought all their games down to $50 with the help of how cheap the discs were to make (not even DVD licensing fees). I'm not willing to go back to the $60-70 model (even with inflation - because salaries rarely keep up with inflation). Every year you don't get a raise, you're actually making less than the year before. Now I buy Zelda and the occasional 2D Mario game and that's about it. No more new Maddens (really old Maddens with yearly roster updates - I've only bought 4 total starting in 1993). My Tecmo Super Bowl for SNES is way more fun anyway. There are still a host of Japanese SNES RPG's that have been translated that I haven't played yet.

[JSoup]

Instead, maybe "hardcore" video gamers are just cheap.

You think? (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/)

[RCM]

$60 games should go away. The industry is never going to be mainstream in the way film is (in terms of audience) when the cost to enter is so high. This generation has been particularly expensive, esp. if you want to exploit Sony's offering to its fullest potential (and M$ to a lesser extent). They asked me to buy their system in '06 and buy a 1080P HDTV along with it, and then a few years later told us 3D TVs are the way to go. Fucking expensive, and fucking weak.

Anyway, I've said this for years, make games the price of a movie ticket or less, and we'll see great things happen. Trust me when I say this transition truly scares the fuck out of the old guard.

One last thing, Wii U development isn't going to break the bank, as I understand it.

[duffmanth]

Seriously? I payed $60 for it at launch, and I'm in Canada.
Every SF game for SNES was cheaper than the one before it.

I'm in Canada to and I can remember when the going price for PS2 and Xbox games was $80 CDN. last generation. Game prices here have come down to $60 in the last 5 years or so because the exchange rate with the US dollar is on par now. You Yanks have the cheapest game prices in the world. I still agree that most games are not worth anywhere near $60, but games from my favourite series like Metal Gear and Gran Turismo, I'll always get day one.

[Trumpman]

Anyway, I've said this for years, make games the price of a movie ticket or less, and we'll see great things happen. Trust me when I say this transition truly scares the fuck out of the old guard.

If you actually think this is going to happen then you're certifiably insane. Indie games and iPhone games, sure they will be cheap, but traditional games will never be the price of a movie ticket. If they were, how could they ever be profitable?

Besides, the movie ticket analogy doesn't even hold water — most good games provide tens or even hundreds of hours of entertainment whereas a movie provides two or maybe three.

[kedawa]

If they were, how could they ever be profitable?
By selling ten times as many copies and not relying on physical media.

Besides, the movie ticket analogy doesn't even hold water — most good games provide tens or even hundreds of hours of entertainment whereas a movie provides two or maybe three.
Some of those $60 games provide far less entertainment than a movie.

If publishers are going to whine and cry about budgets, maybe they should stop killing half of their projects midway through development and cut out the extraneous CG animation and licensed soundtracks. Good gameplay doesn't cost millions.

[wingzrow]

http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/ff0kMKNLMqFnwsYzKijp4EsvbNA/0/di (http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/ff0kMKNLMqFnwsYzKijp4EsvbNA/0/da)
http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/ff0kMKNLMqFnwsYzKijp4EsvbNA/1/di (http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/ff0kMKNLMqFnwsYzKijp4EsvbNA/1/da)
donniebaseball23 writes "Game budgets continue to rise with each successive console generation, and with the Wii U launching later this year, the industry is on the cusp of yet another costly transition. Publishers have been regularly charging $60 for games this generation, but that model simply cannot survive, Nexon America CEO Daniel Kim said in an interview. 'I think at some point the console makers have to make a decision about how closed or open they're going to be to the different models that are going to be emerging,' Kim remarked. 'Today it's free-to-play, and I'm convinced that that one is going to continue to flourish and expand into other genres and other categories, but there may be something else completely and entirely different that comes out that again changes the industry.' He cautioned, 'If your mind is just set on keeping the current model of buy a game for $60, play for 40 hours, buy another game for $60, play for 40 hours, that model I think is eventually going to change. It's going to have to change.'"http://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png (http://twitter.com/home?status=Can+%2460+Games+Survive%3F%3A+http%3A% 2F%2Fbit.ly%2FxBjHYi)http://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png (http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgames.slashdot.org%2Fsto ry%2F12%2F03%2F13%2F227201%2Fcan-60-games-survive%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfac ebook)http://www.gstatic.com/images/icons/gplus-16.png (http://plus.google.com/share?url=http://games.slashdot.org/story/12/03/13/227201/can-60-games-survive?utm_source=slashdot&utm_medium=googleplus)

Read more of this story (http://games.slashdot.org/story/12/03/13/227201/can-60-games-survive?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&utm_medium=feed) at Slashdot.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Slashdot/slashdotGames/~4/xECnHcfPeVk

More... (http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdotGames/~3/xECnHcfPeVk/can-60-games-survive)

Why do you post nothing but skashdot news? Are you a bot or something?

[PapaStu]

It was $109 @ A&B sound launch day because they were the last place in town that hadn't sold out. I used to pay nearly $100 for RPGs and that was in 90s dollars. I don't whine about $60 for the two games a year I buy at that price.

I remember paying tons for NES/Genny stuff when it was new. Virtua Racing sure wasn't cheap when it came out.

I'm not phased buying 70 or 80 buck LE's at a rate of 2 or so a month, plus the other standard releases for 3DS or 360/PS3 at full retail if it's something I want.


@wingzrow yes DP Servbot is a bot. That's all it does is grab RSS pulls from places like Joystiq or Kotaku and post them.

[kedawa]

@wingzrow yes DP Servbot is a bot. That's all it does is grab RSS pulls from places like Joystiq or Kotaku and post them.

You forgot about the mangled formatting codes.

[Griking]

@wingzrow yes DP Servbot is a bot. That's all it does is grab RSS pulls from places like Joystiq or Kotaku and post them.

Apparently the name wasn't enough of a hint.

[TheGam3r]

I rarely buy 60$ new games since i'm just a broke teenager. But there are some exceptions like Skyrim for Xbox 360 and NHL 12.

[RCM]

If you actually think this is going to happen then you're certifiably insane. Indie games and iPhone games, sure they will be cheap, but traditional games will never be the price of a movie ticket. If they were, how could they ever be profitable?

Besides, the movie ticket analogy doesn't even hold water — most good games provide tens or even hundreds of hours of entertainment whereas a movie provides two or maybe three.

While Kedawa did a good job addressing your comments, I’d like to add I'm certainly not certifiably insane. If the general audience for traditional videogames were bigger there wouldn’t be a need to charge $60 anymore. Blockbuster game budgets are still significantly smaller than blockbuster film budgets, yet the film industry gets away with cheaper offerings to the public. If the audience size/reach were the same the game industry could charge much less and remain profitable, no doubt.

Great movies, books, television shows, etc. might actually take less time to 'complete' in comparison to bigger games, but you aren't taking into account the 'fact' that people can and do watch a great film or listen to a great album hundreds, if not thousands of times during their lifetime. I know that's not an apples-to-apples movie ticket vs. game purchase comparison, but the point is people get a lot of value out of other media at lower price points.

I hope that sentiment isn’t too confusing or crazy!

[Clownzilla]

Remember that we now have 30+ years of quality game development we can fall back on if we choose not to spend $60 on a current-gen game. I have been finding plenty of backlog of reasonably priced games (and MAME) to play and still would not catch up in 50+ years.

[kedawa]

In the last year, I've acquired more games for N64 than I have for any of the current consoles, so I'm definitely in the 'back-logger' category.

[Nes]

I rarely buy 60$ new games since i'm just a broke teenager. But there are some exceptions like Skyrim for Xbox 360 and NHL 12.

It's so much cheaper to just stay one year behind on sports games. As for me, the last NHL game I played and bought was 96, the last year before several teams moved out of hockey towns.