This is an opinion piece from the perspective of a long time gamer who believes that the cost of video games today is not worth the money being asked. Do you agree or disagree? Share your thoughts on the subject and maybe developers might listen.
(Casual games, Culture, Mobile, Next-Gen, PC, PS Vita, PS3, PSP, Wii, Wii U, Xbox 360)
Gaming has gotten very cheap recently, specially since the success of online DD stores. I dont see how it can be any cheaper.
I buy most of my games on Steam discounts, most of the AAA games are selling for 20-25usd within 4-6 weeks of launch. Dont see why people feel the need to buy everything at launch.
Hell even for launch purchases you can buy games PC versions from certain sites for extremely low prices.
I think so they need to cover the developing cost of the game, which is extremely expensive. It's the reason why they make a part two and three...it's because they make more money out of something they have already done the hard work for, now whether those sequels should be that same high price is another story. Perhaps they could give a voucher with the original to get a download discount which would negate some of the distribution cost and the cost of the cd on their end. But hey lets not be greedy....
That voucher idea would be nice but i bet that if a new IP came out and they said "hey our game comes with a 5% off voucher for the sequel" we would have everyone troll them for thinking about making the sequel before the first game even releases.
I agree, gaming can be cheaper if you want/need it to be.
Personally, I would rather not go the Direct Download route unless that is the only option available, so I save money by waiting. Why pay $60 for a game when I can often buy the same game for less a few months down the line. Of course that means I can't play new release games on day 1, but it also means that by the time I pick up a game it has often already been patched. Additionally it saves me the annoyance of paying full price for a game that turns out to be an over hyped under performing let down, because by waiting I can see how people who bought the game on release felt about it.
I'm with you on that, PooEgg. I very rarely buy games when they first come out. In fact, over 90% of the games that I ever bought for myself have already been out for 6 months or longer and have only cost me a fraction of their original value. I realize this may not be a good option for a lot of people but it does help to save a lot of money and gives your games more value for your buck.
I'm glad that games are essentially the same price (if not slightly less) than what they were 20+ years ago. If you look at most other entertainment products (movies, concert tickets), prices have at least doubled or tripled in the past 20 years.
There are a couple points of the author's that I don't find solid enough. First, the problem with games being basically the same price, regardless of how good each game is. It's the same with movie tickets. They're all the same price no matter if you like the movie or not, or if the movie is 90 minutes or 3 hours. Sure, companies that make shorter games or spend half the development cost could charge less, but it could work the other way. Companies could charge more for games that have higher production cost or for titles they know a lot of people would likely pay more money for.
Also, their example of a game with both single and multiplayer experience and protesting that one who only plays single player can't pay less and only purchase that part of the game. This could potentially backfire, too. Marketing analysts would likely recognize that they couldn't just split a $60 game into $30 for single player and $30 for multiplayer to have it be as profitable as the way of doing things now, so they'd charge a bit more, say $40 for each, making the total $80. Regardless of what the pricing would be, consumers like to complain, and there would be a lot of people complaining (maybe not at first, but eventually) about having to pay for both single player and multiplayer instead of putting them together.
My point is yes, things could be better, but they could also be worse.
For sure, I mean a game can give you hours and hours and sometimes weeks and months of fun for $60, where as a single ticket to a football or baseball game are like over $100 and you have fun for three or four hours.
Disneyland is like $90 for a ticket, but its not nearly the value of a game in the long run. So I'm going to say that games for the most part are worth the asking price.
I say it depends on the game. You can see MW3, it brings minimal changes, has the same formula and doesn't improve in any obvious way. $60.
Counter Strike Global Offensive, the sequal to an 11 (or 5-6 counting unofficial versions) year old game, which brings improved graphics (expected, yes) updated maps, new maps, new modes, and all that stuff, yet Valve realizes that they haven't made any major progress, and therefore only charge $15, or $12 if you pre order on PC or have PS+.
Thats the difference between a game made by gamers and a game made by business men.
CSGO is priced extremely low but it makes sense 'cause the formula obviously works very well and doesn't justify a big cost when they haven't changed much.
I think SOME games should be $40, and some should even be less. Of course there are rare games that are so perfect they deserve their $60-70 pricetag, but sadly they share the stage with the games that have no right to charge full asking price. The problem is as long as some gamers are happy to pay $60 for over-hyped under-performing games developers have no reason to rethink their pricing strategy.
Most games aren't necessarily worth 60$ but the remainder definitely are.Like anything,value is perceived differently.I wouldn't shell out 15$ for a typical Fps but wouldn't hesitate buying the limited edition Demon Souls for...........95$ cdn.Yes,95$. 'wouldn't' replaced with 'did not'
The price of games this gen, should've been questioned at the beginning of it's cycle. $59.99 as the set price point this gen, has had an adverse effect on game sales. The likes of which, elude publishers, who are consumed by greed. In most cases this gen, NO , games are not worth MSRP, which an "individual" claimed (in PS3's case) is set by SONY. Which is something I can easily discredit, (in regards to physical games) because it doesn't even make sense. The truth is games pricing in previous gens has varied, while this gen, it's rare (almost myth like) that you see a new game (from a big name publisher) for less than $59.99. The price of games this gen, has attributed to more used game sales, which publishers are now so obsessed with eradicating, by going the digital only route. If they would open their eyes, they would see that a $39.99-$49.99 game, has and will always outsell a $59.99 game. A lower price game means more new game sales, the previous gen proves this.
The games I decide I am interested in buying yes. I know full well why games cost $60 and why they used to cost 70 back in the days. I also know if I care to spend 99cents on a game or 150 on a special edition.
Gaming is cheap... I little after launch most games can be picked up for £20. I've just bought myself L.A Noire complete edition for £14.86 new.
When I was younger and games came on carts they were a lot more expensive and only dropped in price if 2nd hand. The only cheap console I had was an Amstrad CPC 464, and I wouldn't want to go back to those cassette tape loading times ;)
I only buy games day one if im trully excited for it. I always draw a line On games I can w8 for to go down in price. Like im excited AC3 and Halo4 ill get those day one. BUT i also want playstation All starts but personally I can w8 on that one.
depends on the game, games like skyrim, fallout, dark souls etc. are...not the games with a few hour campaigns with no multi and no replayability..im not talking about trophies/achievements.
Depends on the game and how you use it. I don't buy a game just for SP or MP, I'll feel like I wasted money so I play the hell out of both and buy only the games I really want day 1. Games like Skyrim and GTA I'm fine with the $60.00 price because there are hours and hours of play. Some action games are over too soon but some with unlockables entice another playthrough.
Considering the amount of extra features and DLC that today's games got, $60 is a bargain. So yes. I'm not that bothered by price though I bough most of my games at either bargain-bin or discounted price.
40°
30°
30°
40°
Ad 
30°
I buy most of my games on Steam discounts, most of the AAA games are selling for 20-25usd within 4-6 weeks of launch. Dont see why people feel the need to buy everything at launch.
Hell even for launch purchases you can buy games PC versions from certain sites for extremely low prices.
Personally, I would rather not go the Direct Download route unless that is the only option available, so I save money by waiting. Why pay $60 for a game when I can often buy the same game for less a few months down the line. Of course that means I can't play new release games on day 1, but it also means that by the time I pick up a game it has often already been patched. Additionally it saves me the annoyance of paying full price for a game that turns out to be an over hyped under performing let down, because by waiting I can see how people who bought the game on release felt about it.
Lmao
There are a couple points of the author's that I don't find solid enough. First, the problem with games being basically the same price, regardless of how good each game is. It's the same with movie tickets. They're all the same price no matter if you like the movie or not, or if the movie is 90 minutes or 3 hours. Sure, companies that make shorter games or spend half the development cost could charge less, but it could work the other way. Companies could charge more for games that have higher production cost or for titles they know a lot of people would likely pay more money for.
Also, their example of a game with both single and multiplayer experience and protesting that one who only plays single player can't pay less and only purchase that part of the game. This could potentially backfire, too. Marketing analysts would likely recognize that they couldn't just split a $60 game into $30 for single player and $30 for multiplayer to have it be as profitable as the way of doing things now, so they'd charge a bit more, say $40 for each, making the total $80. Regardless of what the pricing would be, consumers like to complain, and there would be a lot of people complaining (maybe not at first, but eventually) about having to pay for both single player and multiplayer instead of putting them together.
My point is yes, things could be better, but they could also be worse.
Disneyland is like $90 for a ticket, but its not nearly the value of a game in the long run. So I'm going to say that games for the most part are worth the asking price.
Counter Strike Global Offensive, the sequal to an 11 (or 5-6 counting unofficial versions) year old game, which brings improved graphics (expected, yes) updated maps, new maps, new modes, and all that stuff, yet Valve realizes that they haven't made any major progress, and therefore only charge $15, or $12 if you pre order on PC or have PS+.
So what is the value of either game?
CSGO is priced extremely low but it makes sense 'cause the formula obviously works very well and doesn't justify a big cost when they haven't changed much.
COD...well we know what Acti do with that...
Most games aren't necessarily worth 60$ but the remainder definitely are.Like anything,value is perceived differently.I wouldn't shell out 15$ for a typical Fps but wouldn't hesitate buying the limited edition Demon Souls for...........95$ cdn.Yes,95$.
'wouldn't' replaced with 'did not'
It does, however, seem like the average gamer's perception on "value" has changed, and not for the better, in most cases.
When I was younger and games came on carts they were a lot more expensive and only dropped in price if 2nd hand. The only cheap console I had was an Amstrad CPC 464, and I wouldn't want to go back to those cassette tape loading times ;)
Why do u think I wait 6months- 1year, to buy it on Amazon.com ,on average for $20, or even less, $24 at the most with tax.
I NEVER pay $60, never.