What’s a Fair Price for the Games You Love?

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'."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
NYC_Gamer3064d ago

i dont mind spending 60 bucks on games long as their real good..

vhero3064d ago

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.

SOAD3064d ago

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.

morkendo3064d ago

39.99 is a good price point.

CryWolf3064d ago (Edited 3064d ago )

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.

deafwing3064d ago

I would make them about 39.99, or even 49.99 ...

NeoBasch3064d ago

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.

Darkfocus3064d ago

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)

Timesplitter143064d ago

Yeah 60$ seems good to me. Gotta pay those people for their hard work

Legosz3064d ago

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.

jessupj3064d ago

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.

Yi-Long3064d ago (Edited 3064d ago )

... 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.

JL3064d ago

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.

AAACE53063d ago

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.

jjohan353063d ago

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).

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 3063d ago
Kalowest3064d ago

How about Free99, that will be a good price.

Caspel3064d ago

I enjoy the XBLA and PSN pricing, even though a few are outrageous.

rezznik3064d ago

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.

Show all comments (46)
The story is too old to be commented.