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
Outside_ofthe_Box4813d 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.

Myst4813d 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.

spicelicka4813d 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!??!

Soldierone4813d 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.

MrBeatdown4813d ago (Edited 4813d 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_Box4813d ago (Edited 4813d 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.

catfrog4813d 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

Ducky4813d 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_Box4813d ago (Edited 4813d 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.

RIPSKATEDESTROY4813d ago

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

Fez4813d ago (Edited 4813d 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.

RIPSKATEDESTROY4813d 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

vortis4812d 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.

RIPSKATEDESTROY4812d 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 4812d ago
+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 4812d ago
majiebeast4813d ago (Edited 4813d 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-Flare4813d 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...

ShaunCameron4813d 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.

vortis4812d ago (Edited 4812d 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.

Soldierone4813d 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.....

vortis4812d ago

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

mr_badhand4813d 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)
120°

Playdead co-founder slammed with lawsuit as bitter row with co-founder escalates

Playdead co-founder Dino Patti is allegedly being sued by his former studio and business partner.
Patti was threatened with a lawsuit earlier this year after he posted a now-deleted LinkedIn post that shared an "unauthorized" picture of co-founder Arnt Jensen and discussed some of Limbo's development. Patti said Jensen demanded a little over $73,000 in "suitable compensation and reimbursement," adding that he had "repeatedly" had such letters over the last nine years.

Read Full Story >>
gamesindustry.biz
80°

Josh Sawyer: "I feel good about the ability for people to create games."

Game Pressure met with the one and only Josh Sawyer at Digital Dragons and chatted about RPGs, Pentiment, Pillars of Eternity, the state of the industry, and the genre.

Read Full Story >>
gamepressure.com
290°

The Real Enemy of Gaming Isn’t DEI. It’s the CEO

From Horse Armor to Mass Layoffs: The Price of Greed in Gaming. Inside the decades-long war on game workers and the players who defend them.

Read Full Story >>
rushdownradio.net
jambola13d ago

maybe a real enemy is people who use terms like "the real enemy"
there can be more than 1 bad thing, t's not like a kids show with 1 big bad

senorfartcushion11d ago

This is very much a “dummy who volunteers themselves to the middle” comment.

The real enemy is a common phrase, people use it all the time.

Calm down.

jambola11d ago

i'm very calm
you seem very upset however

Notellin11d ago

You don't seem calm at all. Don't take this so seriously, you seem desperate responding to others defending your opinion that lacks any value or critical thought.

jambola11d ago

stop projecting
i'm not desperately dong anything, i'm tapping at keys on my keyboard bud

PapaBop11d ago

It's not like kids show with one bad guy? I present to you.. Bobby Kotick

ABizzel111d ago (Edited 11d ago )

DEI was never the problem and it was an ignorant take to begin with.

DEI is why games like Kena Bridge of Spirits, South of Midnight, and Ghost of Tsushima exist.

DEI is why we have a huge resurgence in Japanese, Chineses, and Korean developers producing games like Stellar Blade, Black Myth, and why Nintendo & Sony exist.

DEI is why more and more games have HUGE accessibility options with both Sony and MS fully behind this.

DEI was never a bad thing, the entire purpose of DEI is representation of all people, genders, disabilities, etc…

The problem was people used DEI as a default derogatory term to describe what they believed was forced representation, which allowed colorist, racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, and xenophobic fools to run away with the negative DEI narrative.

jambola10d ago

you don't get to decide other people's motivations
sorry to break it to you

ABizzel19d ago (Edited 9d ago )

To each their own, however, nothing you said invalidates why some people take offense to DEI incorrectly.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 9d ago
Sciurus_vulgaris13d ago

Executives seem to often have an obsession with perpetual revenue growth. There is always a finite amount of consumers for a product regardless of growth. Additionally, over investment is another serious issue in gaming.

Killer2020UK11d ago

The fact that they also rarely have any real expertise in game development compounds things. They'll look at what's been successful elsewhere, lack the knowledge to properly understand why they have been successful and then force a team to 'reproduce' their badly interpreted idea of that success.

We see it so often with sequels to games that were successful too. The team are left well alone, they have a break through hit and all of sudden the money men descend on the IP and completely railroad the dev team's ideas. Usually winds up being 'make the same game but MORE'

LoveSpuds11d ago

This is true throughout all of the corporate and public sector organisations to be honest. CEO's generally move amongst the corporate world without any need to have experience of a particular industry, they simply need to rely on their senior leadership credentials. A CEO of a retail giant will just as easily transition to a CEO role in the energy sector for example.

Not defending CEOs here to be clear, I think it's a huge part of the reason the western world is so fucked up. CEOs don't need to care about the sector they work in, in fact it's better if they don't care if they want to screw everyone to make profits.

GhostScholar11d ago

Companies don’t hire executives to break even. If the goal is breaking even then why start the company in the first place.

Soy11d ago

That's understood; it's getting record profits and expecting to always beat those record profits, and seeing anything less as a total failure. Then they lay people off and raise prices to reach those record profit levels again, just to sate shareholders. It's setting expectations way too high just to spike share prices, then inevitably falling short. It's feeling entitled to being more successful than everyone else. It's the CEOs doing all this to boost their own bonuses.

ABizzel111d ago

Growth benefits the company’s profits and therefore the company’s stock if publicly traded, which pleases the shareholders making them more and more rich, which is why Growth is always at the forefront of the vast majority of any publicly traded company.

More growth = More Money and the people at the top want all the money they can get. I can’t really blame them anyone would love to see their profits go from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands, to multi-millions it’s almost like a gambling addiction.

But it also goes to show someone how morals can go out the window for a lot of these people, and how amazing some CEOs are when they catch this early and provide a balance solution that takes complete care of their employees across the board while keeping the business sustainable IE: Insomniac Games ALWAYS on the best places to work list. The rest of the industry could learn.

jambola13d ago

honestly, the "real" enemy of gaming, is ourselves
if nobody bought horse armor, shitty dlc would have died almost overnight
if we stood firm and nobody bought games from companies that were bad with layoffs, it would be solved
we're the idiots supporting awful business practices, we are the ones enouraging it

TiredGamer11d ago

I think the reality that we don't want to convince ourselves of is that without the rise of "horse armor" and DLC, game budgets would have essentially stagnated (smaller teams/smaller games), or game prices would have risen much more dramatically than they have. There was an incessant drive for bigger worlds, infinite detail, and hundreds of hours of "gameplay" over the last two decades, that while perhaps a natural evolution of things, needed a suitable funding stream to accomplish.

HyperMoused11d ago

What...CEOs make tens of millions and that doesnt include SLT etc etc...we now have multiple editions of games, in game currency, MT's, battle passes.....and what do we get..worse game than what was coming out 20 years ago....dont drink the cool aid, its this nickel and dime crap that is absolutely leading us to gaming destruction.

senorfartcushion11d ago

This is the worst possible answer to this conundrum. Blaming the masses is blaming the only people who are constantly “told” to buy.

Consumers are the only ones not to blame here. People make their own choices all the time. Disney movies are bombing and DEInis being blamed. Has that been enough to put Disney out of business? No and it never will.

Christopher11d ago

Disagree. Businesses are able to do what they do because people are bad consumers and don't think critically about purchases. Disney got away with doing shit stuff for years and it's just the last year where people got tired of it. It's not like it didn't work for 5 years or so for Disney to do the things they've done. They'll just move onto another way to get people to see movies and it will be just as bad but more profitable until people wake up and realize it.

TiredGamer11d ago

Consumerism drives business behavior. It's not so much "blaming" as it is observing behavior. The point I'm making is that the direction that games have gone are driven by the spending. Consumers are spending on DLC and they are driving the expectation of more glitz and padded out (lengthier) games. If they continue to pay, they will continue to drive that direction until a threshold is reached that forces a change in behavior.

senorfartcushion11d ago

Corporate advertising is the most powerful force on the planet.

This is N4G for god sake, every day there are arguments between people who are Team Xbox and Team PlayStation because they’ve been convinced that having an identity built on paying money to Sony and Microsoft matters more than having one as individual gamers who can play whatever they want.

And THEN we get to the corporate advertising part: to play whatever you want is to sink MORE into the advertising pits, making it so that you can more than one specific product.

jambola11d ago

ah you're right
they were told to buy it, it's clearly impossible to avoid that
if enough people stopped supporting, it would stop
disney not stopping would only be because enough people didn't stop

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 11d ago
victorMaje11d ago

Agreed. I’ve been saying for years, announce you won’t be buying the upcoming game because of the practices of the previous game, then you only have to stick to your guns once, see how quickly things change for the better.

We have to unite in what we shouldn’t purchase.

jambola11d ago

just imagine a world, fifa came out worse, nobody buys the next one until they see proof it's better and stick to it
or games being forced online for single player and nobody buys it
things would change so fast

HyperMoused11d ago

Just like scooby doo, you have shown us the real monsters are us

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 11d ago
Inverno12d ago

Greed and greedy people have and always will be the main issue for everything wrong in the world. Everything is a product to be exploited for monetary gain. Even when there are things that could help progress us along for the sake of making our lives easier that thing must be exploited for monetary gains. Anything that tells you otherwise is propaganda to make you complicit.

coolfool12d ago

I've never thought "DEI" (although the way most people use it doesn't match it's real definition) is the problem with games. Good games have continued to be good when they have a diverse cast, and likewise, bad games have continued to be bad. There isn't a credible example I've seen where a diverse cast has been the direct cause of a game being bad.

Show all comments (51)