Yahoo UK: The answer to that question has to be a resounding ‘yes’, at least as far as we cash-strapped punters are concerned. However, one high-flying game exec now thinks so too.
If they cost too much, buy less... buy second hand... or don't buy at all. £30 isn't too bad if you choose VERY wisely, if chosen wisely you can expect 40 hours plus of gameplay. If you buy games second hand after about a year or two you can get games for like £10.
You're obviously pretty simple minded. The point is games are too expensive and we shouldn't have to pay higher prices. Nobody wants to buy a game a year later. The experience just isn't the same.
Gaming is only a hundred bucks a year for COD how is that bad?
Who among us really want to have to cut back are gaming? I want to be able to play all the great games that come out throughout the year not just 3 or 4 of them. This is one of the reasons I have to rent games. I actually play the games I talk about on here it's not just hearsay.
the only thing I hate is when publishers charge full price for games they know DAMN well aren't worth above $39.99 and didn't cost them no where as much to make as they are charging for. But ultimate if you feel like you got you're money's worth then why complain. Me personally, I think any game without multiplayer and a campaign mode that is either short or something you won't play again or even both shouldn't be more than $39.99. MOVIE GAMES SHOULD NOT BE $59.99 ALSO!!
They all are...they have gotten shorter and easier...That doesn't matter...the price is going up for everything...greed...plain and simple...they want people to pay for demo's now...brutal...
Shorter? Did you ever play games on the NES and SNES (Genesis, etc.)? The vast majority of non-RPGs could be beaten in about a couple of hours. The games are easier in some respects. However, there are plenty of difficult games released now that are just as hard, or more so, than those in the past. I'm not trying to say games shouldn't sell for less, as they should, since most games sell more than they did in the past. However, games cost far more to make now than they used to. The games that cost less to make usually sell a lot less (not always), which requires them to sell for the same amount as more expensive-to-make games. It's a difficult thing to argue, since there is definitely greed involved in some aspects, but not always. Besides that, games are NOT that much more expensive than they used to be. Games used to not have a standard retail price, and certain games were outrageous. I paid $91 for Chrono Trigger, as an example. Super Mario Bro. 3 was >$60. The thing is, certain games were cheaper than others. They do this nowadays as well. Look at 3-Dot Heroes, it's only $39.99 because it wasn't real expensive for them to make it (I'm guessing on that, not sure if that's the real reason).
Your talking about 20+ years ago. just think back to the PS2 domination days. Games were pretty beefy a few years back and now we have 5 hour COD games and 6 Heavenly Sword games. They are still great experiences but they feel like they end too quickly.
If you think about some of those "shorter" SNES games...some of them could run you $65-$75 a piece!?!? Technology wise we are at a point where the storage medium can't be at fault, unlike the cartridges of the SNES, so now the onus falls on paying the cost of development and other random stuff. But, as long as the games keep selling at $60 (regardless of quality), the devs will keep charging. I'm sure there are devs that maximize their monies to the hilt, but there are probably just as many that are wasteful and the ends don't justify the means.
Atlus didn't make the game silicon studios did and they spent the same amount making it as most games. In japan where FROM Software published the game they sold it for full price. Atlus decided to take all the DLC from the JP version and put it in their version in the box for free, they wanted the game to be cheap because they aren't dicks, and hopefully it'll sell more copies too.
Buying used games is no longer a good idea because all the major publishers (EA, THQ, Ubisoft) are going to charge the consumer money to re-activate the online mode. How lame is that?
you all think this is bad , not yet . when they start blowing the price even higher because of 3D support and natal support and ps3 move support, then watch the forums blow up in a frenzy. people , people , this is just the beginning
if you think its too expensive find a new hobby "If they cost too much, buy less... buy second hand... or don't buy at all. £30 isn't too bad if you choose VERY wisely, if chosen wisely you can expect 40 hours plus of gameplay. If you buy games second hand after about a year or two you can get games for like £10. " mrv321 ^^^^^ This
Yea, let's all take dicks advice and take up sewing. It's way cheaper to buy a couple balls of yarn and sew a sweater for molly the dog. Doesn't this sound like fun everyone? I hate dimwits who think only a select few should be able to do something. Wake me up when you move out your parents basement and they aren't footing the bill for everything. You're part of the problem with gaming today.
When are you paying for demos? Buying second hand is not an option? Oh yes it is, again $10 isn't that much didn't you know? That's what a burger and a large drink. Here's an idea instead of buying every game the day of launch, wait a week or two, see if you still want it and can afford it and THEN buy it.
No they def do not cost too much. You just need to stop being a loser who makes $14/h and get a real job.
$14.00 an hour is for losers damn my friends don't even make that much an hour. They are only making minimum wage. $14.00 an hour is damn good in four hours you are looking at $56 dollars and in eight hours is $112 and in five days is $560. So roughly in five days you are making $500.00 a week and in a month is $2,000 dollars. Man there is a lot of people that wished they made $14.00 an hour............
DLC is what makes games expensive. When content is cut and sold as DLC, it makes game any where from 65-150 bucks. I think games today have plenty if content to justify 50-60 dollars. But sports games & movie games really should be around $40 max.
I find console games extremely expensive and overpriced, while I've found pc games substantially cheaper. But companies like Infinity Ward, Ubisoft are pricing pc games like console games. This trend is worrying.
they should be priced depending on content. SP or MP only games should cost less.
Hell yes they are i wish they where $49.99 to me that would be a good price
I would raise the prices more if I could.
hes a jew get him
If they wasn't there wouldn't be a huge market for pre-owned games... You don't see pre-owned DVD markets or pre-owned movie markets do you??
Most games come out new for $59.99 these days. Three of that before tax is $180. Just a couple years ago, games new were $49.99. Three before tax was $150. Comparatively, I could maybe find a used game for $30. And a couple more years before that SNES games were like $39.99. Three of those were about $120. I could get a fourth game and it'd be $160. With $20 left to spend, I could maybe get a gameboy game. Actually, for $180 in those days, I could probably get another SNES. And back in the NES days, I remember a Big Stick cost about $0.10-0.25 depending on liquor store or ice cream truck. It now cost $1 at the ice cream truck. Frankly, I'm not too keen on spending $60 on a crappy game or a short one. I expect, with my $60s handed to the sales clerk, that it is a good $60 invested. Crappy and short games should be cheaper. Though some short games deserve it because the production value and effort is clearly there.
Yes and No. Prior to the 360 and ps3 games were roughly $50, then they went to $60, a $10 dollar increase to deal with the upgrade to HD. If anything I would say that having the same price for everything is the problem, $60 for a AAA and $60 for a D video game. If anything it should be leveled accordingly.
I just buy the games I can then rent/borrow the rest. There are alot of great cheap older games too. It seems to me like new releases are dropping in price faster recently, so thats one good thing. I agree that more games should be priced at 50$ or less. It would be smart because they wont be judged as harshly when compared to great games and they could sell alot more. Edit-- There are plenty of games worth 60$ tho. To me anyways.
And most AAA games are well recognized months before released, only buy at $60 the blockbusters, or be a late buyer. Play what you have, buy old cheap sweet games and grab the Great games when they hit $40 (about 4-6 months after release)
No, i am more than happy to pay $65 for games such as *Killzone 2, Heavy Rain, Gears Of War, God Of War, Red Dead Redemption* But i would never pay that much money for a Game that will only be able to provide me with an afternoon worth of fun, like MW2,POP,. I think games that can be beaten within 7 hours should be priced at $50 MAX.
MW2?!? The campaign is 5 hours. The spec-ops is another 8. The online is limitless. Don't troll.
You know, some people don't like mw2's multiplayer. Or mw2's co op. And I was utterly let down by mw2's singleplayer. The only time I play mw2 online is with my friend. And lately we've just been trying 1 on 1 throwing knives only. By the amount of time spent playing throwing knives only with her justifies getting mw2, but without that? It would be one of the only times I felt my money was wasted.
By the way, I didn't press disagree.
It's because of the broken business model. A game can be sold for $60 and over £40, sell over a million copies and still lose money. It sucks for us gamers to have to pay quite a high amount but it sucks even worse for devs and publishers who depend on the high prices just to get by.