If your game sucks, don't charge $60 bucks.

I honestly don't get this. First let me correct the title if your game isn't as good as let's say the established AAA titles or franchises in its genre don't charge people $60 for it, because more than likely we're going to buy the known game and only rent your game.

But wait renting a game is good, because people actually played your game, and may want to buy it later. But honestly when you beat a game you rent, unless it really impressed you then there's no reason to go and buy it, and by pricing yourself with the big boys you put yourself in the same league as the big boys, and usually the big boys will run you over.

If your game is single player only, let's take Enslaved for example, and it's a good game, not great, but good don't you think you could potentially sell more copies if you brought your game in at a $30 - $40 rather than $60. It makes no sense to me. When you look at games that sell big numbers they are generally established franchises or have great multiplayer giving the game longevity to those who like multiplayer. If you aren't in one of those categories then you truly need to come out at $40 unless you know your game is on par with those games.

If your game is a 7/10 don't sell it for $60. Let's take Splatterhouse for example. After discussing it with people in my review the game has problems, personally I didn't run into any crashing issues like they did, but the game isn't a technical marvel in no way. It has framrate issues, screen tearing, and long load times. But my point is even if all this was fixed it probably would have gotten maybe 0.5 more points on its score. At the end of the day it's not a game for everyone, and it's not a very good game, it's just mediocre. And if your game falls into that category it should NEVER be over $30. Splatterhouse for example should be a PSN or XBLA title for $10 - $20, and most of the games in that same situation should join it there. Gamers are more than willing to take a chance if the price is right, and $60 for one of these games is oh so wrong. Dark Sector and The Darkness are probably the best examples of this type of game. Both of those games were good, but not for everyone and weren't up to par with the big boys. They should have been $20 or $30 titles and people would have felt OK with that, not to mention reviewers do take price into consideration.

Finally if your game sucks, don't make it. Really why are you wasting your budget on a game you know is bad, and won't sell. If your game is full of game breaking glitches, awful gameplay, an awful story, and awful presentation then why bother.

[jidery]

The problem with your idea is that developers don't know if their game is going to suck or not. They try their best to make the game the best they can, and if people don't like it, then it's considered a bad game. The thing is, not everyone has the same tastes. Many developers release a game thinking its better than it turns out to be, because they made it. A game being bad is only opinion, and the developer cant predict the opinion of everyone. There are many "bad" games that I ended up loving anyway.

"Finally if your game sucks, don't make it. Really why are you wasting your budget on a game you know is bad, and won't sell. If you game is full of game breaking glitches, awful gameplay, awful story, awful presentation then why bother."

No one in the right mind will put money into a project and shortly before it released can it simply because its bad. They are going to try to get every cent out of it to make up for the lost money.

[ABizzel1]

When you release a game that's a technical mess in the single player it should not be $60. First of all it shouldn't be sold at all until it's fixed.

Secondly they have test groups who play the game over and over, and they know whether a game is good or not.

Now preference is the only problem a dev. should run into, because everyone has different taste.

If they've used their budget, and the game still sucks, you need to take what you've learned, and apply it to another game, because you're not going to make money off that game. The best thing to do would be send it to PSN or XBL like I said, and hope for the best.

[Nate-Dog]

In regards to games full of glitches, bugs, ridiculously long loading times and other things, then I agree, I've been echoing the same sentiments myself about things like that (i.e. FIFA 11 on the PS3, surprisingly enough I seem to be one of the only people with the problems I have faced in it and they have driven me around the bend). Red Dead Redemption's loading times were terrible too and I think everyone knows of the glitches in that too.

But that's how it is these days, big titles are rushed to the fore to make their release date, they're left a mess and get away with a full-price tag. Companies can say "well don't worry we'll patch that away", well good for you but why should I have to pay full price for a game on day 1 when it won't be complete unless I have a connection to the internet and have to wait a number of days or weeks for it to be as good and complete as it was advertised to be and as it should be from the word go?

[mastiffchild]

Yeah, sadly the first corner they cut these days is the QA and beta testing which would ensure fewer games released with the issues you described here. Fact is that the release now and patch later approach has led to very sloppy releases with both Bethesda and Activision VERY guilty of releasing games with way too many glitches and bugs for comfortable gaming.

I'd LOVE to be able to back you up on Fifa11(always used to be a PES fanboy too), mind, but the game runs like a dream for me and is an exception to the yearly updated sport title being a total con in my eyes as I think it's another GREAT edition from a franchise I used to HATE.

Yeah, again, I agree that a lot of games get pushed out before they're ready because devs want to make their dates but I'd also put the issues down to cuts in dev budget(COD games dev budget is less than HALF the ad budget FFS-and that's the biggest cash cow on the planet-yet every corner is cut and we still have to play creaky P2P on consoles, why? Costs)meaning corner after corner gets cut.

FO3 had 300 testers and wsas full of bugs and glitches, yes? So what would you expect for New Vegas? More tersers and fewer bugs after the outcry last time? You might but they used ther exact same number and we got the exact same buggy results. A full retail cost beta, yet again.

OT-IDK about what should make devs release their games more cheaply but as it would seem an admission of a lack of quality it isn't EVER going to happen. not even for games like bloody Dead to Rights:retribution-they just tend to go down in price fast-so wait a werk and pretend it's release day, yeh?

[Nate-Dog]

About FIFA: yeah I know, honestly so many people are telling me they haven't had a single problem with it but I had problems from the word go. It froze on me on the setup and has just been an annoyance so I sold it. I got it on X360 and it feels like a completely different game, not a single problem with it, I can't understand it for the life of me.

[hintonmj]

Just so you know, your title reads: "If your game sucks, don't charge 60 dollars bucks."

How could you not know how bad your blog title was before you released it? Not to mention your grammar throughout.

But seriously, maybe the question should be why do companies that make the best games feel the need to artificially hold the price of the game to $60. Eventually the price would go down, but how many people would be willing to pay $80+ for their favorite game at release? I know I would for my most anticipated games. Companies are leaving money on the table, either because of a mandate by the system manufacturers, or because they themselves are afraid of consumer backlash. A better model would be for the game to cost more on day 1 and then drop the cost over the next month or two. They could drop the price faster if the game isn't selling as expected. Maybe it's better to get as many sales as possible at release and they feel $60 will ruffle the least number of feathers.

[ABizzel1]

First off as you said it's MY BLOG.

Secondly when I was writing it I was speed writing.

On to my point.

"A better model would be for the game to cost more on day 1 and then drop the cost over the next month or two."

Who would buy the game knowing that if they wait, and the game doesn't sell then it's going to drop in price significantly. That's suicide for developers and publishers. If they did that, people would just wait it out, and the consumer would practically control the pricing of all games, and the segregation of games would be even worse, with the best games selling like normal and everything else selling for $5 and $10.

My proposal is to apply a tier system to selling games. I hate to use reviews to rank them, but it's the best visual example.

AAA games/established franchises should be $60. Call of Duty, Halo, God of War, Metal Gear, Uncharted, and more are examples of games that have established themselves as best in their genres.

A - AA games/new IP's/One mode only should be $40. Games that score in the 8.5 - 9.0 range, new IP's like Bayonetta and Vanquished, or games that are single player or multiplayer only should look at the $40 mark. Look at Dead Space, it sold horrendously its first couple of weeks. But as hype built around it and the price dropped from $60 to $40 and lower it managed to turn around into a success selling more in it's later weeks than on it's launch.

B games should be $30. Games that score 7.5 - 8.5 like The Darkness and Dark Sector should be in this group. They're not bad games, they're just not excellent games. They have the mechanics in place, it's just that the execution wasn't there. For $60 no one is going to buy it, but for $30 there will be more takers.

C games. If your game is a 6 - 7.5 put it on XBL or PSN for $10 - $20. Let's be completely honest no one but the uninformed will buy a game that receives anything below a 7. They'd rent it and test it out for themselves, and then make the decision. At the end of the day they're not going to pay $60 for that game, but they would consider paying $10 or $20 for it.

And if your game is anything less than a 6/10 then you need to reconsider the project and try something else.

Developers know how their games compare to the competition, and if it isn't up to par then who do you expect to sell to. There are a bunch of other games competing for the same sale, and your game isn't going to get it if it doesn't stand above the pack. Reviewers would more than likely give generous reviews to these games based on their pricing, because price does matter to gamers.

Oh and how was that grammar for you.

[hintonmj]

I was being tongue-in-cheek as well as making an ironic comment. I found it humorous that you were dissing unpolished games while posting an obviously unpolished blog. I didn't mean to insult your intelligence... too much. ;)

And I didn't mean to imply that prices should be dropped in a predictable way, but I'm not convinced that would be a problem. People pay more for early adoption all the time. The only way consumers could actually control prices is if they all agreed to not buy, but there will always be people willing to take the plunge at the higher price if it's actually worth that much to the individual. People know computers and games are going to be much, much cheaper in the future and yet they buy now.

Another good example is system sales at release. New systems are obviously worth more than the price point chosen. That is why there are shortages early on and why people who get their hands on one are able to sell them for a huge profit. If instead the first systems were sold on Ebay to the highest bidder as they come off the line, the creators would be able to earn that much deserved profit instead of some kid willing to stand in line. Then, as the sold prices come down to the normal price point, there would be a higher supply and stores would be able to stock systems without the common shortages.

That would be my proposal, and thanks for not getting too pissed at my snarky comments.

[ABizzel1]

It's fine I don't take anyone on the internet serious.

I know there will be early adopters, but if a game comes out at $80, I just don't see the big majority coming to buy the game up. Only a small percentage of gamers will come out and buy games at $80 a piece, everyone else will wait.

It's good idea, but I don't think that's a safe bet for the devs. and publishers.

[oneangle]

I remember this game being announced a few years back and I'm quite surprised this performed quite poorly. It's unfortunate that some people found out after dropping 60 on it.

It is probably just customary to charge the standard price for a game whether the companies feel it's worth it or not. It's bound to make some sales at any and every price point. All I can recommend to avoid getting screwed by these overcharged garbage games is to do much much more research and get out of the habit of buying a game at full price. Game sales may be an issue with location but I know there's always a sale for games somewhere.

[blackburn5]

It's pointless anyway. Many developers have given up on quality and instead settle for excuses and stall tactics instead. Why kill yourself polishing and fixing your game to perfection when you know very well the target audience will buy it anyway. Do you think the developers who made FO:NV didn't know that they would buy it anyway glitches and all. People think companies are stupid but they know the level and amount of crap they will take or how gullible their customers are. That is why Microsoft for example knew they could get away with a 40% plus faliure rate on the 360. You think Sony could have gotten away with that with the PS3? PS3 owners would demand their heads on a stick.

[kitana]

They don't make a lot of good games like they used to back in the eighties and nineties..

[PsycheMax]

Hahahahahhahahahaahahah

Seriously you are a genious!

So if a publisher want to make his game a AAA TITLE all he's got to do is to put the price to 60 bucks xD
And why not make this kind of things with music and movies?
So if the music is worth, make me pay 2 $ instead of 0.99 on Itunes for the single. That's will be better :D

No, seriously, and what will NBA, MADDEN, FIFA, F1 , PES and all annual sport games will do?
Those are almost AAA every year, what will they do? 80 bucks-a-year?

Come on, be serious, that's the price for some economics laws. For the starters, think about REQUEST and OFFER. ;)

Happy Bloggin' btw

[ABizzel1]

What does music and movies have to do with video game developers/publishers pricing their games? Your point and sarcasm are invalid.

As far as sports games, they aren't considered AAA by the majority of reviewers or the general public look at the current sports games meta and the highest is Fifa with a 90/100. Not to mention sports games come out every year, at the same time, and depreciate in value faster than any other genre.

[gamerz]

What's interesting is that last generation (the ps2/xbox era) we did have variable prices for games. AAA games were $50; smaller studio games, like katamari damacy were $20. I'd like to know why things changed this gen? My hunch is it started with Microsoft forcing companies to charge $60 for all games on their system, and they had a one year head-start to establish the trend. I think this because 2kgames used to always undercut EA sports titles by selling their games for 40-50% less. But all of a sudden, they started charging $60 for their games on the 360. Anyways, it might be a nice followup post to figure out what caused the chage.

[andfed]

I agree with your opinion.

I also think that developers know what kind of game they are going to produce even before the final product is out (in terms of quality I mean). I also believe that its very hurtfull for their own business, because they are charging the same as other games that they just cant compete.