GameZone's Jason Young writes, ""Now, I’m sure I’m not the only one who thinks that $60 is a bit pricey for most games. However, therein lies the discrepancy; ‘most games'."
i dont mind spending 60 bucks on games long as their real good..
Agreed as for less quality games selling for cheaper we do have that but the devs are not great judges of what's good for your money and what's not. I say that lightly though as Activision as we all know tried to do it the other way and charge more for MW2... I bet they don't charge less for a lower budget title though.. I honestly think the bigger budget you spend on a game the more you should charge. As the more you spend on it the better it usually will be.
So you think publishers should intentionally sabotage the sales of their games by charging less for games that aren't as good. That's not very good business. It's honest, but it's not good for business at all. If games were priced based on their metacritic scores, do you think any gamers would go out and buy the cheaper games? I wouldn't pay 20 bucks for a D title even if it's just 20 bucks. And I probably wouldn't pay 30 bucks for a C title nor 40 bucks for a B title. And there's the notion that a larger budget doesn't equal a better game. Uncharted 2 didn't cost as much to make as Grand Theft Auto 4.
39.99 is a good price point.
I think new games should have been $55 bucks instead of 60 cause developers are really over pricing the consumer these days look at GTA4 why did we get the hole game with DLC parts too, right now all the major developers are focus on DLC and trying to get as much money out of consumers its ridiculous then you have EA trying to fight the used game market with codes for features like online that should already be in game thats just dumb how these big companies just take over everything that make games fun now days.
I would make them about 39.99, or even 49.99 ...
I'd like to see this kind of pricing. They may take a hit in profits at first, but after a while I'm sure word of mouth will spread and casuals won't be as intimidated as they would a $60 price tag. I'd try to enact this business model if given the chance. Again, I'm willing to pay more, but I think cheaper prices will work out for both developers and consumers.
and they had great sales for being new franchise both of them sold over a million I believe(and before anyone reply's I know batman's not a new franchise but arkham asylum is a new video game franchise)
Yeah 60$ seems good to me. Gotta pay those people for their hard work
I think games like God of War III are not worth $60, same with Alan Wake, because of just the campaign, and not only that but it is short. Game like Red Dead Redemption and Fallout 3 deserve to be $60.
I agree. GOW3 was a very awesome game, but I got the platnium in 3 days and it cost me $120. I was very regretful of that purchase.
... new games are typically 55 euro or above, which in most cases is a ridiculous price. I also feel publishers should KNOW what they are releasing. You can release a new NHL and NFL and NBA game in North-America, and expect everyone to buy it for 60 bucks... but in Europe, where those sports aren't as popular, and those new rosters aren;t that important, not many people will be willing to spend 60 euro on that, regardless of how good the game is. Release NHL11 here for 30 euro, and many more gamers will be willing to give it a try. The same goes for FIFA games in North-America btw. In Europe there are enough people who love football and are willing to pay full price, but in America there are far fewer fans who are willing to shell out like that. But yeah, games in Dutch stores are usually wayyy to expensive. Luckily, I just order pretty much all of my games online from the UK or gamehubs or whatever. BTW, and this is really REALLY funny AND pathetic at the same time: Last week Call of Duty 4 was released here in Holland (Europe?) on XBL Games-on-Demand FOR 50 EURO!!!! 50 euro for a game that's over 2 years old!!! Owww how we laughed and laughed and laughed. Activision's greed + Microsoft's greed = complete and utter failure.
I do kind of agree that $50 would be a better top end game price. But not all games are created equal, so they definitely should be all costing the same amount. There's not way in hell that I'd pay the same for WET as I would Uncharted 2. Just not worth the same to me. And developers need to start realizing this (matter of fact all forms of media need to, but that's another story). I was going to go on this big spill about how there should be a set equation for figuring a games price, rather than a set price, but I don't really know enough to figure out a good logical equation for that. Maybe something like take the production cost of the game and divide that by projected sales of the first 2 months? Or maybe take production cost and divide it by a flat 1million (except for the obvious blockbusters--cause I'm not paying 100 for GTA4 either)? I'm not sure, but I'm sure there are people with alot more information and insight to the industry to be able to figure out a reasonable equation for that. Here's the thing often overlooked: developers complain alot saying that games have to cost so much to make up for production cost. Then going on to say the reason they need to be so high in cost is because most don't sell that many. The thing is though, lower price and they WILL get more games sold. This is basic economics, the price elasticity of demand. It seems they just choose to overlook that though. Now though, they're so deadset on charging 60 for a game that we as consumers are left to pick and choose (selectively) what we actually do buy. This results in alot of people just simply not being able to buy all the games they want. Or alot of times a person will be like "oh i'll wait til the price comes down before I get that game". The problem with that is that more and more new games are coming out everytime we turn around, so those old games either get forgotten, or the new games suffer from having to pick and choose once again. Even a $10 price drop would stimulate the market and allow gamers to buy more and more. Publishers and developers though (at least 99% of them anyways) just seem absolutely unwilling to experiment with pricing though. Unless it's Activision who wants to experiment in the wrong direction lol. Charge less and more copies get sold, plain and simple. Experiment with that price elasticity and you'll find the ideal price for games. Games this generation (two years ago) on average cost like 20-30 million to make. And obviously costs drop throughout a generation as dev kits become cheaper and whatnot. But let's assume 30 million is the cost of the average game to be developed. If you're charging $60 for that game, then that means you just have to sell 500,000 to break even. To me that just sounds selfish. I think that if your game is worth a damn (thus your work is actually worth being paid for) 500,000 is an easily attainable number, and it should be more like 750,000 or 1million that you're shooting for to break even. Basically, lower price WILL mean more games sold, so why isn't somebody working some price elasticity of demand equation here? And on top of that, a game's cost should also be somewhat a reflection of the cost to make that game, so a game that costs 10 million to make shouldn't be costing the consumer the same price as a game that cost 75 million to make. That would be like Samsung spending $200 to build one television, then spending $400 to build another one, but selling them both for $600. Just doesn't make sense.
My theory is, games with single player and online multiplayer should cost $60! Games with only single player should cost $50. Lower quality games should cost $40.
Nintendo charged $50 for their SNES games and that was the 90s when the dollar was worth more. I don't have a problem with $60 if companies provide incentive to buy the game new ie free DLC and maps. I don't, however, support the notion of taking away features ie online play if you buy the game used (for example EA).
How about Free99, that will be a good price.
I enjoy the XBLA and PSN pricing, even though a few are outrageous.
Yah, most of the XBLA and PSN games are priced accordingly to what the devs think their product is worth. Which to me, is highly welcomed in this day and age.
50 was a good spot for last gen. 60 is expensive for this gen. I used to buy 5-8 games a year, now its like 3-5. If the game is great i dont mind wat i paid.
At Least there's a set price now days, back in the SNES days games could cost up to $70. FFXI was $60 or $70.
as cheap as I can get it. I buy everything around 5, 10 I'm almost as ready to flash the credit card, 20 is good for games I really want, 30 is almost my max for a game, and honestlt, I rarely have to break that line of thought. Most games end up in that price range anyway, and the UK's pound sterling is so low that I can get my hands on pretty much any game I want for under 30€
modern warfare 2-40 bucks with all maps uncharted 2; full price halo odst; 10 bucks tax and shipping includ. heavy rain: 30-40 bucks little big planet:full thats how much I'll pay for those games
Then the problem is that people's opinions vary. Some people are willing to pay full price for games like Fallout 3 which have no online component, and others don't want to pay full price since it doesn't have online play. Also, some people decide AFTER they purchase a game whether it was worth the full price. So, for you, Heavy Rain was worth 30 to 40 bucks but for someone else it may have been worth the full 60. And I know other people who don't regret paying full price for MW2.
Sony's 1st and 2nd party studios are really the only ones I spend $60 on.
I would pay 99 cents for a new Shadow Hearts game... ...For every day of my life.
Did I miss something in the article? His idea sounded exactly what the other guy said, yet he lol at it. Anywho Point of fact, there are only a few games out there that are worth $60. Most of them should be around $40, seriously. But the industry is greedy and will eventually price themselves right out of business.
I feel games should be in the gap between 40-50€ at launch, then fall to 20-30€.
i'm done paying $60, i haven't played a game i thought was worth that much. i've started waiting for price drops and if its something new-ish i'll gamefly & keep it for $40 or so.
does anyone else think that a developers and publisher store could work? all games and accessories from them would be sold there like a gamstop or gamestation except there would be no middleman taking massive profits from used game sales i no the internet will still imped this but for your average joe who ALWAYS goes to a big gaming store this could work *ON TOPIC* £30-25 brand new day one would mean i wouldn't hesitate on buying a game i was interested in
but there are a few problems with that. -The Valve example: It's easy to bite off more than you can chew. Valve got a bit carried away with their HL2 episodes and look how long it's taken them to release them. While Valve might be able to get away with it because they're so popular and well known, any lesser known developer may have issues with this if they take too long to release content. People will forget and move on to other games. -During the time it takes to release your next episode, new games have come out and possibly stolen the players attention by doing things bigger, better, etc. -The Sin Episodes example: The game might not sell well, and the story remains unfinished. Good for the developer, because they haven't invested as much time as they might have in a $60 game. Bad for the player, because the storyline remains unknown. -Console versions will most likely require internet connections in order to get the additional content. We're already seeing developers reducing game data size to reduce the number of discs on 360, with Rage and FFXIII. Spreading your game out into 2 or 3 entries will require 2 or 3 seperate retail releases for each episode, which I imagine will cost more than releasing a full game on a single disc. Obviously an alternative will be downloadable content but not everybody has a fast connection, or even has a connection at all, not to mention it would use up a lot of bandwidth. I'm sure people are aware of how stingy some ISPs can be about bandwidth. -Marketing each episode. Now you have 2 or 3 products to market at seperate times rather than just 1 product at one time. This will cost more money as well.
The problem is, when one person sees a game that they think is easily worth $60, there's someone else who wouldn't pay a dime for it. The sheer length of a game isn't a good price marker, as quality is an important factor as well. This is not an easy problem to solve; hence, the rise of a standard.
I like what Atlus has been doing with this recently. Like how Trauma Team and 3D Dot Game Heroes. Both priced at around $40 rather than the standard prices as something of an admission that they're niche.
I usualy buy used games for 30-35 but if a game has a really good preorder bonus i'll go for the full 60 art books and soundtracks can usualy sway me
PC Games prices have only gone up %25 since I was a kid, and inflation has gone up WAY more than that. PC games should cost $60 at least.. maybe more since you get a heckuva lotta fun out of them, typically. Console games.. $70. I gladly afforded games at $40 when I was a kid, when minimum wage was like $4 an hour -- whining about games for $50-$60 nowadays seems like a joke.
You guys who say $60 is too much are stupid. Most games you buy are worth the $60 due to the phenomenal cost to make games. But note i say most. not all games are. but if you think all games aren't worth it than you sir should not be a gamer at all and should hand in your controller to the proper authorities
$50 on PC is how I like it. I hate how Ubisoft and Activision are trying to hike the price of PC games to console game prices.
For normal games i don't want to spend more than euros 49. For super powerful games/exclusives i don't mind 59. For crappy games max 29. Too bad that almost all the games (over all in GameStop) are about euros 70...
I am willing to pay any amount for GOW and Team Ico games. I don't mind spending $60 on elite PS3 exclusives. Everything else at $39.99. I used to buy okay games when they fall $20 and under but not anymore...don't have time to play them anymore...Sony is keeping me busy with its PS3 exclusives and of course the top tier multiplatform games.
60 bucks is a fair price for the games I love. I'd pay $40 for the ones that are good, but not great.
lol it's funny how some of you say $60 is fine for a game. Then I bet next gen when they cost $70 you will say that is fine too. And you can't say it's worth it to pay that much to support a developer, they did just fine when games were $50 or less.
Only games I bought new this gen for 60 bucks was MGS4, and UC2. Out of those games, only MGS4 deserved the full price. UC2 was more like a 19.99 game.
30 dollars for single player 30 dollars for multiplayer see the article's comment section for more..
At the moment pricing for games makes no sense. 5 Hour Game, Next to no re-playability, No DLC, No multi-player = £39.99 20 Hour Games, Endless Re-Playability, Free DLC planned, Huge Multi-player - £39.99 Oh YAH SURE, Thats fair.
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.