Top
200°

Why the end of the $60 video game is near

Yahoo: There's a war going on in the video game world, but it's over dollar signs, not virtual land.

A boxed copy of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, the world's top-selling console game, costs $60. Angry Birds, the world's biggest mobile game franchise, costs $1 for software that you can download in under a minute. The pricing gap between what's traditionally considered the highest-tier premium games and the fast-evolving mobile, tablet, and social gaming market is widening, and it's spelling disaster for countless game makers caught in the middle.

Read Full Story >>
games.yahoo.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Outside_ofthe_Box2067d ago

Uhhh, Why are they trying to bring mobile phones into this?

$60 is just too expensive and that's that. Gamers just can't afford to buy more than 2 games a month new. It's as simple as that. And of course well established titles will continue to do well at the $60 price point because people know what they'll be getting. Unestablished/new IPs will of course struggle because nobody want's to shell out $60 only to be disappointed.

What publishers need to do is either make all game cost $40 or price games according to how much it costs to develop it. There is absolutely no reason why a game with a low budget costs exactly the same as a game with a high budget and yet publishers have the audacity to blame rising dev costs for the $60 when in actuality each game has a different budget, but consumers have to pay the price for each game...

Gamers are finally tired of going broke. It's time for publishers to adjust.

Myst2067d ago

What really drives it up is DLC at times and the rate at which it comes out. While I have no problem with some DLC at times a few select companies seem to take it a bit too far and seem to push it out at "interesting" times.

spicelicka2067d ago

DLC nowdays is bullshit. Initially DLC was only developed after the fact, if the developer had new ideas to expand, months and months after the game was released.

Now they friggin have DLC made and ready before release and they intentionally omit it. Then like 3 weeks after the game comes out they release DLC, wtfff!??!

Soldierone2067d ago

The absolute only thing I have against your budget based pricing is Activision. We do that and suddenly COD "needs" to be 75 dollars, then 80 dollars and it just keeps climbing till people quit buying it.

MrBeatdown2067d ago (Edited 2067d ago )

That's basically the way I see it. A standard pricing keeps some games' prices higher than they really ought to be, but it also ensures games stay at a certain point. Once we start basing prices on the value of the game, it opens up the door to higher prices as much as it does lower prices.

As it is, prices do come down. It's not an ideal situation, but at least it's fairly predictable. I can usually get the games I want for the price I want within six months of release.

I would be kind of interested in seeing Sony or Microsoft establish some kind of $30 line of download-only games that aren't quite arcade sized, but aren't full-price worthy. Sony kind of started that when they released Warhawk, Socom: Confrontation, and GT5 Prologue all for $40 on PSN, but not much happened after that.

Outside_ofthe_Box2067d ago (Edited 2067d ago )

Well I was thinking that there would be more of a maximum cost and a minimum cost.

I see what you are getting at, but I was thinking that competition would keep most game prices on the low end.

All I know is that if games go up in price next gen I will not by any game new. I will buy all used and if next gen systems prevent used games then I'll just buy it when they drop to a reasonable price.

I really don't like buying used. Last gen and prior I never bought a game used. It's only this gen that I started to buy used/ wait for games that I REALLY wanted to play to drop in price.

catfrog2067d ago

and why is that a bad thing? if people are willing to pay $80, let them. it opens the door for other devs to possibly get more sales because there are less people willing to pay that much but still want a shooter

Ducky2067d ago

"There is absolutely no reason why a game with a low budget costs exactly the same as a game with a high budget"

Budget doesn't mean much when you're buying a piece of entertainment. The value comes from the quality of the product itself, which not only depends on the budget, but also on the talent of the developers.

Outside_ofthe_Box2067d ago (Edited 2067d ago )

I am definitely aware of that. I was suggesting that games should be priced on how much they cost to make. There really is no way to price games on quality as what makes a game good or bad is subjective.

RIPSKATEDESTROY2067d ago

stop crying about 60, try 100! we have that over here and we dont cry about it

Fez2067d ago (Edited 2067d ago )

You should start, that's ridiculous! Australia? You guys get royally screwed over there.

MP3 is going for $90 on Steam in Oz when it's like £30 in the UK ($45). You're paying twice as much for a digitally distributed game? I would not be a gamer if I lived there, just out of principle.

RIPSKATEDESTROY2067d ago

europeans get screwed too and yes we all should but lets face it. Microsoft keeps pushing the price more and more, and i think the only thing we can do is show it with a boycott. speak with your money gamers

vortis2066d ago

I'm sorry but I hear this way too often. You guys need a watchdog group or something, or do you guys get paid more regularly? (it's about $10 an hour average over here in the states).

$100 is straight up unacceptable and is there any reason why the price is so high digitally? There's NO physical distribution costs, no shipping, etc., etc. YOu guys need to band together and get some crap done, like what angry gamers did with straightening out Capcom. They got their crap sorted out real nice.

RIPSKATEDESTROY2066d ago

im not really sure but if im guessing id say its because currencies, shipping and taxes. but ive tried for years to open peoples ears and eyes to it but i found out the only way to do this is to speak with your wallet. thats the only language they understand.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2066d ago
+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2066d ago
majiebeast2067d ago (Edited 2067d ago )

Yeah Yahoo lets compare the likes of uncharted halo and cod against angry birds...

Also i almost never pay 60 euro's for a game most online stores sell em for as cheap as 40 on release you just gotta know where to look.

Malice-Flare2067d ago

such entitlement. NES games used to cost me $70 average, if anything, games have decreased in price since then, but since there is so many of them, you actually have to work and pick and choose what's worth your money...

perhaps, Sony was wrong to price PSX games at $40 back when the PS1 launched...

ShaunCameron2067d ago

Not only that but the game length was at most a third of what today's games are. Did gamers all of a sudden forget that back then it was common to pay $70-$80 for a game that could take little over an hour to beat?

No wonder why gamers are spoiled crybabies. LOL.

vortis2066d ago (Edited 2066d ago )

What's with the shill talk? The NES wasn't the only gen. Yes VR Racing on the Sega Gensis cost $90 bucks at launch because of that V-Chip. So what?

The PS1 and PS2 era (as you mentioned) proved games can be great fun, entertaining and visually acceptable without wallet-breaking prices. The PS2 era is the era of value versus content comparisons and I don't know why people are always quick to forget about that.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that GTA: SA at $49.99 still offers more content and gameplay variety than any game ever released to date. So no, we aren't getting more game length out of crappy AAA, over-priced pieces of garbage compared to the PS2 era.

Soldierone2067d ago

Let's see. 60 dollars for a 5 hour single player, a bunch of the content on the disc needs an additional 10 DLC key to be used, and then further DLC releases for 10 to 15 dollars to make the game of an actual good length.

Combine that with a good amount of games being short, COD clones, or crap and yeah 60 dollars is high. I can understand the price increase at the beginning of the generation because of the adjustment, but at this time you should learn how to keep costs down....especially if the same engine is being used to make the game.

They blame it on high development costs when they have CEO's wiping their arse with 100 dollar bills.

This article probably isn't a good one to use to talk about it though since phone "games" have absolutely nothing to do with it at all....but it is Yahoo so I'm surprised it wasn't just blatantly advertising Apple.....

vortis2066d ago

It saddens me that the most "widely viewed" sites are usually the ones prone to spouting the most misinformation. Something is backwards.

mr_badhand2067d ago

The only games I bought new were Gears 3, ME3 and Batman:AC.
Everything else has been bought used or rented.

60 bux is just way too much in this day and age. Hell it takes 60 bux to fill up my tank.

Show all comments (38)
The story is too old to be commented.