Paying too much for Video Games?

Lets face it, the price of video games goes up with each new console release. A new Xbox game cost $50. A new Xbox 360 game cost $60. I'm sure when they make the 3rd Xbox, its games will cost $70. Will this price raising ever end? Sure the games technology as well as all the work it takes to make a game in HD cost a lot of money, but seriously, $60 for a game? We think this price must be lowered! We know it cost money to make these games, but the answer is actually quite simple. It's a technique you already find a in many racing games (although they haven't dropped in price). In-game advertising.
It's simple, place an ad in all the game's loading screens, BOOM! The game's price instantly drops $10. We would rather have to watch ad campaings during a game's loading screens and pay less, than get ad-free loading screens and pay more.
Unfortuantely, game publishers apparently have different thoughts on the subject.

[bym051d]

"Lets face it, the price of video games goes up with each new console release."

Huh? IIRC, Dragon Quest games on the NES were $85-100 (not the first one) and Street Fighter on the SNES was in that range.

PS1, N64, Saturn, Dreamcast, PS2, Gamecube, and XBOX games were all $49.99. That stayed the same from the mid 90's until Microsoft allowed prices to rise when the released the 360.

IMHO $60 is too much for all but the best titles. I'd like to see tiered pricing. I'd pay $60 for Super Mario Sunshine, Final Fantasy XIII or something else absolutely epic. Charging that much for Heavenly Sword gave me heartburn. Charging anything for Warhawk with all the problems we're still experiencing is obscene.

Allow games that aren't that long or as high of quality should be $50, $40, or even $30. Devs know what their games are worth.

I'm currently playing Folklore. I like it... a lot. I'm not sure I like it $60 though. It's not that special.

Oh, and that website has a horrible layout. It took me a while to find the article... it's on the right.

[SubZero]

Lol could not agree more. Who ever wrote this article must be under the age of 18. This gen has been the first to see a price rise in years.$50 was the standard for a long ass time. If ppl would not have bought so many special edition games these companies may not have realized we were willing to spend the extra $10

[XENOCIDE]

I think you're right about the limited edition thing. That's just starting to get really hot n' I don't think it would have taken off like this at all if it weren't due to gamers widely embracing LE games last gen. Had it not taken off the way it has, we may still be paying 50 for our new 360 n' PS3 games. As was stated, they know if they're pushing a AAA or garbage title out the door n' should price it as such. Hell I wanna take a spin with the new Hot Wheels title, but do you really think for a second I'd pay 60 to do so? Now if the game was 30 bucks...

It's funny (in-game advertising). So many articles suggest it's getting more and more expensive to develop n' publish games so that's why there's so much of it going on. Not just racing games either, I played through F.E.A.R. on the 360 for the first time 'bout a week ago n' couldn't tell you how many "DELL" monitors n' "XPS" PC's I ran into. So they're costs are going down by offering multiple SKU's, in-game ad's, and the current gen $10 price hike, yet there's no break in sight for gamers at all. Funny.

[Seraphim]

I have to agree on probably every aspect of that comment. And couldn't agree more that when it comes to great games I'm easily willing to pay $60 for them, but 98% of "next gen" or rather current gen titles simply aren't worth the money. But there's so many problems when it comes to game pricing. One is that every single developer/publisher out there will "feel" their game warrants $60. Which as gamers most of us clearly know that's not true. Also each individual has their own opinion on a games value. Your $60 well spent might be another persons waste of money.

Also, I'd hate to add this theory because it's likely irrelevant but a games sales should determine it's pricing also. Take an annual blockbuster like Madden. $50-60 each year is ludicrous. Same can be said about MANY other annual titles. Also you get a big title which blows through the roof why continue to charge $60 for it throughout the entire year? Why not drop it's price to $50 after it reaches a certain point in sales, or return in revenue. Better yet you know you have a huge hit like Halo 3 why not give the "fans" and gamers the title for a little less knowing that it's going to sell millions. At the end of the day a lot of us gamers and our buying habits come down to pricing. I was an avid collector this past generation [PS2/GC/XB] and now that games are $60 I hold off and have passed on at least a dozen games I would have bought had games still been $40-$50. Figure this, $60 + tax equals nearly 2 games this gen compared to 3 last. While I have plenty of money to spend the bottom line is thats it's simply not worth spending it on 98% of the games being released and that extra $10 adds up quick. Especially when you normally buy anywhere from 4-10 games a month. This goes for both PS3 and 360, and let's not even talk Wii. 99.5% of their games don't warrant my $30, and is the absolute reason I only own a few.

In this fantasy world of mine I've always thought that if more people would simply go buy games instead of renting them we wouldn't have this problem. The industry would be able to offer a lower price simply because they're actually moving units. Sad thing is that this likely wouldn't change their pricing strategies. But it truly is sad that when a game sells only a million copies it's considered very successful. How large are these install bases? Well it's pointless to brag about them because more often than not it seems that install base isn't even supporting the industry and it's games anyway.

Also that's a good point about Limited Editions and the 360. Limited Editions [assumption/rumor] were ran to see if the gaming industry could charge $60 for games this generation and while consumers [either idiots, or hardcore fans] sucked up not so Limited Editions for a heftier price the developers/publishers/console manufacturers saw that as an opportunity to profit and recoup on investments. Because at the end of the day that's what a games budget is to these companies; an investment.

As for in game adds. Keep them out of my games. We all know McDonalds, Coke, Pepsi, Burger King, Sprite, and any other major player who would want their name advertised in game. We DON'T NEED IT in the gaming community and it's as simple as that. If games aren't selling enough units to regain the initial investment then it's time to look at the quality of the game, if the quality of the game is there [cough, cough, Okami, Beyond Good and Evil, Psychonaughts...] then perhaps it's time to look at marketing, or even what these companies can do to get consumers to buy these games instead of renting or ignoring them.......................... ..

I'd like to point this out as well. If games truly cost that much more to develop then why does the same game, on PC, still sell for $40-50 compared to the console counterpart which is $60?

[mellowspaz]

Actually the N64 sold first party games for 59.99 when the system first came out (in the U.S.A anyway), and third party games sometimes sold for 79.99 (turok dinosaur hunter for example). I remember those days and they sucked balls.

[domeno]

$60 for a game that`s not much here in Australia we pay be tween $99.95 & $119.95 now that`s expensive.

[DrPirate]

I didn't even read the article.

I'm just going to say yes and I agree.

[xplosneer]

I'll take it on something like Billboards or sports games where they should be, but loading screens? I'd rather pay the extra $10.

[Kururo]

this has already been said before. the cost to develop a next-gen game is high. if you expect to continue to get next-gen games, you have to pay more.

[bym051d]

Here's the rub... I'm buying fewer $60 games than I did $50 games.

[Relientk77]

yes i agree, if games werent $60 right now id buy more....

i liked the playstation (1) days ... a brand new game was $40 .. i think that was a good price .... then ps2, xbox, 360, ps3 $50 and $60 thats just too much come on....

bring the price down to $40 that was a decent price and worth it

[Charlie2688]

I think we are reaching a point that the prices are becoming unacceptable specially since now a days gamers seem to buy in generous quantity cuz of the quantity of consoles owned and the INSANE amount of games released so close, for example if you had to pop you 59.99 maybe each month or so it would be (sort) of ok BUT now you have to pop your 59.99 sometimes SEVERAL times in a single month, hell just look at this november if you want to have the latest titles you have to spend BIG

Just look at me this november I am gonnan spend around 200 bucks only on games and contrary to what you would believe they are only PC/360 titles and not some of the ones you might expect

[jaja1434]

Actually what annoys the hell out of me is when a 360/ps3 game cost 60 but the PC counterpart only cost 50$. I mean they are the same damm game so why in the hell is there a price difference? I remember reading a while back that, as far as the 360 goes, their answer was something like "we have seen continued success of the (60$) price point and see no reason to change it. I call such BS on that. If its the same game, there is no reason that it shouldn't cost the same...

Ohh ya I remember now, it was because Shadow Run was 50$ on PC but 60$ on 360. That kind of crap pisses me off. And the game wasn't even worth 20$. :<

[hashilu]

1. I bought Zelda for the NES the day it came out (closing in on 20 years ago)..the game cost $90 plus tax ... so please stop complaining about the $50 games, if you don't want to buy the game b/c you think it is too much money, then don't buy it. Simple enough.

2. You do not speak for everyone when you say you wish there were advertisments all over the game to make it a few dollars cheaper.
I do not share your opinion, and I bet a lot of other people would disagree with you. If you want to be taken seriously as a writer then understand that when you give an opinion then you are giving YOUR opinion, you are not giving the opinion of everyone.

3. Games are changing. A $50 dollar game that is single-player and takes 6-10 hours to beat with no replay value after that is no longer going to cut it (development costs are too high)...so see point (1) ... simply don't buy the game. These games are going to die, trust me.

4. Consider cost per entertainment hour:

Going to a movie costs around $10 (the market is currently speaking that this price is too high for the crap Hollywood makes)...and the movie industry is sliding downwards.

Okay so a 2 hour movie costs $10 = $5 per hour of entertainment

Say it is a single player game that costs $50 and takes 10 hours to beat = $5 per hour of entertainment

Granted, a lot of people are not going to the movies anymore b/c they
are overpriced crapfests.

5. Solution: Don't buy games with no replay value (note: solution is NOT to put ads all over bad games with no replay value).

Solution: buy games with replay value:

Starcraft cost $50 (now you can get it for $20)... I played about 1,000 hours of starcraft (serious) on free battle.net servers (no xboxlive subscription needed). Cost per entertainment hour = $0.05

That's right... a nickel an hour. If you can't afford that then you really should get a second job or something...

Even if you were to spend the $50 on 12 month xboxlive and $50 on halo 3 that is still only $100 total ...... simply play matchmaking for 1,000 hours (about 3 hours a day...may be a bit much) and it will only cost you $0.10 an hour.

Anyway, the point is to pick games with replay value so you get a good cost per entertainment dollar ratio (okay i have offically now invented that economic measurement): CPED

Edit: actually I couldn' fathom playing Halo 3 for 1,000 hours b/c you would get really good at the game after a little while and then would get really mad because of this: http://counter-strike-tourn...

So you are better off playing Starcraft or CounterStrike (you can easily find free servers for both)...both will give you high replay value (these games have been popular for 10 years each for a reason)...and each could possibly give you an actual profit if you become professional at them.

[bym051d]

"Okay so a 2 hour movie costs $10 = $5 per hour of entertainment"

Heavenly Sword was a AAA title with only 5 hours of gameplay and limited replay. That's $12 / hour of entertainment. It's crap like this that boils my blood. I'm not against paying more. I want to get more then.

You give Starcraft as an example. That's an extreme exception to the rule. Starcraft is one of the all-time greats.

I'm not denying that cost have gone up. Just don't charge $60 for games that don't deserve it.

The game costs for Dragon Quest, N64, and your Zelda don't really hold up (I don't remember what Zelda cost when I got it). Those were largely based on physical media cost. PS games were initially cheaper because the DVDs were nearly free to produce compared to memory chips on carts.

Face it, there are probably only 5-6 360 games worth $60, 3 or so for the PS3 and 2-3 for the Wii. That's a bad sign.