uproxx.com: Dan Seitz explaining why 60 dollars are too much for an average gamer.
60$ excluding microtransactions and day one DLC.
publishers know most of their games are not worth 60$, they tack on gimmicks to justify the price. many drop the price of games fast but they crave the impulsive gamers paying 60$ for a 30$-40$ game. the market needs a mid-pricing category (25$-40$), with an average 5m$ development budget they will brake even at 200k of sales, after that it's all profit. (these numbers are just hypothetical). to get an Idea what 5m$ can do for a game, Witcher 2 cost about 7m$.
@Xaphy: Agreed! And how about games not being only 5 hours? $60 is too much for a game i can beat in a weekend. If their too lazy to make the game last longer, than they should be paid accordingly--$20 to $30 for short games. If they want $60, then step it up and lengthen the game (but dont drag story on if it can't be stretched, just add a time attack mode, or multiplayer (well thought out, not tacked on (but that time also coulda been spent making campaign longer-_-), co-op, level editor...SOMETHING to compensate us for having blown $60 on their 5 hour games.
20-30% of games made are worth $60.00 another 20% are worth 50$ and the rest should be $30-40
and when they're $40-50 suddenly it's "because the developer knows their game isn't that good" so I'm not paying it. It's a lose lose for publishers. Though ultimately I do believe most games should fall in the $40-50 just like last gen, the gen before, etc. Even those worth $60 generally get more than enough sales to compensate. Arguing length is mute. Nintendo games often took a couple hours to beat. One comment mentioned tacking on extra hours but not dragging out the story. That is exactly why it's only 6-8 hours long. They didn't want to drag out the story and completed what they needed to do in X time. Personally I feel a lot of these games are worth playing twice or more. Plus the added benefit of trophies for playing through a 2nd, 3rd time only gives motivation. Even if slight it's there. A games length bares no relevance it's value to me. Either it's worth it or it's not. Give me a 3-4 hours campaign w/ online then you'll hear me complain unless it's something extraordinary.
@Seraphim Sony dropped the price of Sly4 to $40 because it's what they felt was a reasonable price for the game based on it's budget, and it's projected sales. I think by doing so they probably even got more sales from it. Price isn't always equated to quality, but there is a definite consumer mentality that cheaper is of lesser quality, which is at odds to consumers who don't want to spend more than they have to. There is a whole business side to sales vs price, but that's going a bit far for this topic.
Seriously, these devs when they sell a good amount make alot of money. Well in actuality the publishers i believe are making the large bulk of money so maybe these devs need to revisit the contracts they have with these publishers. Add on the DLC milk fest and now micro transactions and these guys are making a pretty penny.
Personally $50 is the price I think it should be for games. Even though I do not know how much better that would make it for the average gamer who doesn't have tons of money to spend.
I`ve said the same thing in another thread. At $50 I`m much more likely to walk into a store and buy 2 games for $100.00 as opposed to how things are now. And although I hate (and I don`t use that word lightly) DLCs, they should never cost more than $4.99 in my opinion. They would sell a lot more them if they actually priced it for what it`s really worth. 99% of DLC`s don`t even amount 25% of the content found on the original disc, then why are we being charged $14.99 = %25 of $60 which is the price of a new game? $50.00 games, and $4.99 DLCs and I'm a happy camper for now.
Also, get rid of that BS with selling cheat codes (or "God-Like" weapons) as DLC, too.
$50 now is not the same as $50 10 years ago we actually pay less for games now than the ps2 era or even the ps1 era when you look into inflation remember n64 games used to be $60-$70 15 years ago. remember 25 cent doritos there 2 for A dollar now prices will never be the same again inflation is A B$%**
Agreed, $49.99 should be the highest that is charged for a game(excluding special ediditions).
Sadly this is nothing new, ask some person who fought in world war II if he is still alive how much a loaf of bread cost then. Way cheaper than it does now so why would anything else be different? When they make a new car model, do they price it the same as last years? Of course not, when they make new TV's with higher resolutions do they sell them for the same price they always had been before of course not.. I mean literally every single thing in this worlds economy increases in price over time. It is somewhat ludicrous in a way to me that people honestly think games are going to be treated any differently. Games will get better just like everything else and with that will come a higher price tag just like everything else in this world. The economy is the issue not these developers. They have to survive in this shitty fucked up economy just like everyone else has to and the only way to do that is by adapting to it. They have bills that become more expensive every year and so on.. From a developers perspective sadly $60 for how much money went into those games to them is probably fairly reasonably priced.. People want change but they always are looking in all the wrong places..
Not necessarily true tech usually decreases in price look at the price of a 32' 720 p tv compaired to 6 years ago, with software company's now they outsource alot of stuff too to places like china also its much cheeper to master bluray disks. You only need to look at the price of pc games to realize console owners are getting a bad deal.
Man, there are even more shades of grey with this issue too. Pc games are cheaper because they come with online passwords just to play. AND they are beginning to have DRM so u gotta be online just to pay (so price lowered due to annoyances, and game companies get more money since they essentially eliminate piracy). Also, many of those games are on cheaper cd's, not blu ray. They just install into pc and done. Finally, these game companies dont have to pay royalties to make windows games (but that is changing with MS's new policies). Patches are also free to distribute too (no large fee like on ps3 and 360). THAT is why pc games are cheaper. However, we are seeing online passes on consoles now too, but sadly the games STILL cost $60. If the game company KNOWS that they can stifle used sales (thus bringing a lot more revenue because most copies might as welll be purchased new), then it's only fair that they drop the price of console games. But their so greedy they would rather hurt used sales, and instead of passing down the savings to us consumers, the greedy companies decide to keep prices at $60 to make even more money. $60 was reasonable before, due to high development costs. But now with DRM, online passes, lack of instruction manuals, etc, then it's time to lower costs of games (to the customer)since those methods reduced piracy, game sharing, eliminated used games market (with time),and lowered cost of product by getting rid of instruction booklets. I don't like these methods, but their not going away anytime soon. The least these companies could do is reduce the cost of games since their already doubling/tripling profits due to these shady practices.
@dannyboi pc games need DRM to sell at retail unfortunately otherwise it only takes one person would buy it then and put it on the net and its everywhere luckily steam came along. The real cost of a game nowadays is mistakenly thought to be the size and complexity of games but if you look at COD it cost 40million to make and 200million to market. I didn't diagree with you as most of what you say is right and it's a very gray area
If we are keeping with inflation, games would cost $300.00 now. There is no way that anyone would buy them.
Thank you for this article as a student working in a cafe living off tips gaming as a hobby is like being thrust into a harsh situation every time you voice a complaint someone always brings up past console prices 60 dollars for a student is a big deal I've seen students trying to stretch 20 dollars literally on the phone crying because that's all they have to eat and wash with so for someone to say gaming is cheap well that all depends on the situation and perspective Id type more but im mobile Prof you make a good point but just like you use the economy I can turn that same argument around and use the consumer as an example 60 dollars is steep to pay companies should be satisfied that with this economy people pay that premium but instead they implement even more features upon this already premium entrance fee
I understand his point but you can't act like they're making up these costs and that there are no victims when these titles sell poorly even at $60. Instead the focus should not be on how wrong one thinks game developers are for defending game price points due to their high budgets but on a campaign to get the average video game budget to decrease. If the game industry made a collective decision to limit even the Halo's, CODs, GTAs to $20-$30 million and smaller titles even less then we wouldn't have so many devs going out of business. Developers need to be able to do more with less money. With next-gen consoles raising the graphics bar it looks like things will only get more expensive.
Exactly each company is looking to create some graphical beast when all they need to simply do is entertain gamers just because you have a budget of 100 million doesn't mean spend it all budget it try to make a quality product without killing the company gamers like technical marvels but we love enjoyment out of the product much more I want these companies to survive I like to see people working in a creative enviorment no gamer gets joy out of hearing about a company going out of business for us gamers its like the loss of a cherished friend the problem is somewhere there has been a disconnect between gamers and the people who once strived to cater to them
Shouldn't development be easier on a system that's a lot easier to code for? If it's easier, then it be quicker to make games right? If it's quicker to make games for it, it means less money being spent. If it's easier to develop for, then there's less money being spent on research and development. I think next gen, we won't see as many delays and technical issues that plagued this generation. The PS4 will make the developers able to make games they've always dreamed of making, but just didn't have enough power in the hardware to make it work.
It's not just coding, it's the amount of time needed to code/design everything that goes into the world. Back in Deus ex days you could get away with levels built of copy paste, nowadays we need more diverse and detailed environments, realistic facial and motion animations, quality voice acting, highly detailed weapons/tools, physics engines, all things that take time, money, and people to make. That and the general leap in our graphical expectation for any given title is part of why the mid tier developers have all but disappeared.
Hydralysk: But for current gen games, they're already using quality voice acting, detailed environments, and motion captures. It's just going to get better with more hardware overhead. Most current gen developers already make higher quality assets (look at PC games) and after that, they scale everything down to fit on consoles. So please tell me how development costs are going to go up? I think it should be the opposite. Easier and faster means less money to me.
The developers have a point. $60 isn't a lot of money for a game that you're going to get a lot of playing time out of. For example, I bought Bad Company 2 at launch for $60 and sank about 250 hours into it. I can't think of any other leisure purchase I've made in the last several years that gave me that much value-per-dollar. I could make the same argument for Killzone 2, Skyrim, and a bunch of other games. Even if you throw MP and huge RPGs out, I think I got 30 hours of quality playing time out of Dishonored, for example. Was that worth $60 me to me, with lots of consumer surplus left over? Yep. But of course nobody says you have to buy a SP game like Dishonored at launch. I paid $30 or less for both Batmans, Dead Space 2, Uncharted 3, inFamous, God of War 3, and other titles just by waiting a few months. All things considered, gaming is a pretty inexpensive hobby, even with most retail games launching at $60 initial price points.
Gaming is really an inexpensive hobby your right on that. Even when people cried like babies when the PS3 came out I wondered what the fuss was about. The thing launched on 2006 at 600 bucks. Take that per year and basically anyone who bought one essentially payed 8 bucks a month to have one. You can hardly get 2 comic books in a month with that today.
Yeah. I just had to laugh when he compared videogames to going to a concert. A good concert is what, 3 hours? A lot of the big older bands charge a lot more than $60. So $60 is a lot for games you can dump 100 hours into? We get it, life happens and you have other expenses. Congratulations. Just because you can't afford it now because of priorities, doesn't make games expensive.
@philoctetes Finally someone I can agree with. The retail price of games isn't really any higher than it was about 20 years ago in the UK at least, megadrive games were about £35 at release and actually went up at far as £60 when SF2 came out on the SNES. These days games are about £35-£40 at retail and most give amazing value for money. Waiting 2 months I picked up Binary Domain for less than half price. Its an inexpensive hobby if you want it to be, if you must have every game/dlc at launch then yeah...its going to look expensive but for me dropping £40 on a new game I know i'm going to love isn't an issue.
IMO sixty bucks is fair, if the game is good then I will gladly pay. I get the enjoyment, and the devs can afford to put food on their plates and a roof over their heads. However, specialized game retailers like EB are half the reason why game prices are so high. Standard retailers are much cheaper, but they don't have the same range of games, or pre-owned/pre-order incentives. And that gives game retailers free reign to charge whatever price they want.
But it's not a lot of money, relative to other sources of entertainment. And that's their point. It might be a lot relative to weekly income, but the average person who spends money on entertainment, whether a sports event, a concert, a night out, a visit to the cinema, a date, or whatever can easily spend $60. I'm with the devs on this.
Ok, if games are too much then wait 2 weeks to a month after a game releases and it is usually $10 to $20 cheaper. There is also options like gamefly where you can get games for cheap. Most people buy games and don't even beat them. I have a lot of games in my backlog that I still need to get through. If there is a game that comes out that you don't absolutely have to have day 1, then just wait. Especially during the summer when game releases are slow, you can find games you may have missed for cheap. Oh well, if your a day 1 buyer for every games then it may pretty expensive. I try to shop smarter now but some people need a new game the day it comes out. Just trying to spread some shopping tips...haha
$60 is a lot of money, imo, and I'm a cheap gamer. If I had to pay $60 for something, I do a lot of research before actually buying the game. Though I've had some luck with some leaps of faith with Xenoblade and The Last Story. I've been renting out games more these days than actually buying and keeping them. That's what happens when you're broke...
I always say that games should be priced according to budget. Because, why are we even paying $60 for a game like Atelier Rorona when the game looks like a PS2 HD collection game and the budget wasn't anywhere near to 20 million dollars? To me only Triple A budget games should cost full price and even then, niche games would benefit from this because it would entice people to try them out just because they are cheaper.
I have to agree here: some games are simply overpriced as it is the "norm" at this point. Publishers need to accept not all games should be priced the same and doing so actually ends up hurting them much more in the long run than if they simply lowered prices for some games by $10, $20, or even more compared to trying to charge $60 for the same product. There is a reason almost every other industry has tiered pricing depending on quality. Naturally there are some games that do this but not nearly as many as they should. It hurts both developers as well as publishers but I can bet it hurts Devs more simply because they are "easily replaceable" when it comes to finding someone cheaper even if quality takes a dive--which ends up doing even more damage (to franchises, development teams, as well as publishers). I'm not saying games should be dirt cheap either but there is a reason some games never sell or we wait a few months or even just weeks as we know retail stores and publishers both know their selling products beyond their worth. They then act like their doing us a favor by pricing them accordingly but the damage is done as some people will ignore them simply because they "must not be worth it" if discounted so sharply so soon--or they buy it used for even less. If priced right day one there would be more initial sales as well as less used as its much easier to pay 30-40 or even $50 on a game you're on the fence about then "full" retail price. This is especially true though when the games are released near big AAA games as they're left sitting on shelves unsold even if a great game in their own right. Basically all In saying is this: how many people would be buying a Ford, Toyota, etc if they could get a BMW, Mercedes or even a Ferrari for the same price?
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.