Could changing the price structure save gaming?

Game developers say that the used market hurts them because they don't get any of the revenue. Well, when John Doe is ANXIOUSLY awaiting not the release, but the PRICE DROP of your title (and not entirely because he doesn't have $60 to spend, he just doesn't find that much value in your title - rightfully so most likely) then you're forcing the people who WANT TO PLAY your game to not pay you for it. Why? Because you had to release it at $60 - or else who would have bought it at all?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
dangert123437d ago

Well yeah it becomes avalibble to a bigger market

Dramscus3437d ago

This is demonstratively true with titles such as 3d dot game heroes and the hd remake packs which release at 40 dollars and sell astoundingly well.

Much to the surprise of the publishers in the interviews.

Though they chalk it up to the game being super great.

teething3437d ago

Lower initial price points are ok... But humans are cheap. Sell it for 30 at the start and the same people will wait till it is 15

LocO_o3437d ago

Cant beleive that after 5 years we are still paying $60 for a game.

KDubyah3437d ago (Edited 3437d ago )

I think that a good selling price would be around $40, for most people.
If I'm not mistaken, ain't that what most PC games are priced at?

sleewok3437d ago

The point is that not all games are created equal and they shouldn't have a fixed price rate. Pricing should be based on the value of the game (as well as cost of development).

Yeah, most games should probably be $30-40, but games like UC2, or MGS4 should be $60.

kramun3437d ago

It would never work. Do you think pubs or devs are going to think 'Hmm, our game isn't as good as game A, we should sell our game cheaper because it's worth less'.

It's all well and good in theory, but it's never going to happen. Who would decide what a game is worth and where it belongs in this imaginary pricing scale?

RedDragan3437d ago

Movies are also not made at the same investment, but keeping the selling price low means everybody flocks to buy them and hence the huge profits.

By economy of mass selling, Gaming companies would probably be better off selling games for £20 (about $30) when they launch.

sleewok3437d ago

Great article. I had never even thought about this. It is so true. "You get what you pay for" just doesn't apply to the pricing scheme of console video games.

ainsz3437d ago (Edited 3437d ago )

Games should be on T.V. It is the only thing that makes gaming so alien to casual people. Almost everyone has a T.V. and Most likely HD set ups with Satellite, or for yanks, cable. With gaming, you have to buy a console which is rather expensive for some, especially for those who aren't particually interested in gaming, then you have to buy each game, which on release costs £40 each!

Imagine it, you have your drama and soap opera equivalent games, perhaps even online T.V. gaming. Then You have your movie equivalent games such as Uncharted and Gears Of War which you can buy on disc or play on T.V. at a later time and advertisements would pay for the game.

L.A. Noire, in my opinion would be better suited as a T.V. series than a full feature length game. I can this happen eventually, On Live is a step closer, but it is a rather flawed system.

noorbert3437d ago

There is one big flaw in the article and that makes it totaly broken. Writer defines good and bad games as given, while this is very relative. Everyone has different taste in a game and someone can consider game good, someone bad. Which game is average enough to go $30 ? game which has average reviews of 6 out of 10, 7 or 5 ? And most of all, developer doesnt know whether his game will be average. Most of the developers try to make best game they can. Sometimes it wont work out. They might know they are not making another metal geard solid 4, but they deffinitely dont know whether game will get 8, 7 or 6 out of 10. While i am pretty sure you would consider 8 good game and 6 average. So if they picked $30 and game received good reviews it would be big mistake, but they woulndt be able to know this forehand.
About the developers complaints about used games, its as stupid as it can get. I realy dont know if they are that stupid, or if its just complaining out of habit. People who buy game at full 60 and then sell it, buy the game with itention to sell it, because they cannot affor to spend full 60 and then keep the game. So if you remove them option to sell the game ( by forcing people who bought used game to register and pay, thus raisinng cost of used game and shrinking used games market ), then people who buys the game at full 60 and then sell it, wont be able to afford it and you lose this people. People who buy only used games wont start buying new games for 60. So only outcome is that developers will lose people who buys games at full retail price and then sells the games.

Show all comments (12)