I imagine one of the main reasons that the prices drop so much quicker now is because many more games have multiplayer components now and the online communities tend to drop off significantly with each major game that comes out after it.
Zetona: This idea has been stewing in my mind for a while, but some recent visits to Amazon.com really drove the point home.
If there's any indication of how overpriced retail games are, it's how quickly their value drops off. Mass Effect 3, a AAA game launched less than two months ago, was 50% off on Amazon the other day. The sale has ended, but its price is stil $20 less than it was at launch. Many big-name titles from last fall are now in the $30-$40 range on Amazon. Only the very best, highest-rated titles are still worth $50+. Driver: San Francisco came out in September. It's now going for less than $20, as are most games a year or more old. No other medium has anywhere near this level of dramatic price depreciation. The standard price of a Blu-Ray movie on Amazon, for instance, seems to be about $25, the movie's age be damned.
Oftentimes it seems like games and game systems are priced so as to punish the early adopters, or at least make them regret their early adoption. Pay $60 within a launch, buy all the DLC, and then watch as they release a $30 Game of The Year edition with all the bonus content included at no extra charge. I got my Xbox 360 in late 2006. The price was $400 for a 20GB hard drive and a unit that has RRoD'ed on me twice. Now, for the same price, someone can buy an Xbox 360 Slim, which runs quieter, uses less energy, and is more reliable, has a 250GB hard drive, and comes with Kinect and two (admittedly mediocre) games.
I feel like this merits more resentment than I generally see, and it's obviously a factor in used game sales. What do you all think? Should this change? Is it something we'll just have to live with?
They aren't too expensive... at all.
Seriously, where did you get this math?
If they're not overpriced, then why does their retail price drop so quickly? In a sense, the system would almost be better if year-old games still cost $40 or $50 new, instead of $20. There would be less disincentive to buy it at launch.
...Okay. I read the thread. I know this isn't contributing much, but it is vital that I post this.
You made me do this...PHA+PGltZyBzcmM9Imh0dHBzOi8vbGgzLmdvb2dsZXVzZXJjb250ZW50LmNvbS8tQTBxWUR4SWN3a2cvVGtTQ2JySG9NYkkvQUFBQUFBQUFBeVEvYTZKMDR6VXc1enMvMy5qcGciIGFsdD0iaW1hZ2UiLz48L3A+
You know what? You asked for it when you made the title.
Fireface: U guys think you have it bad, in Australia we pay $90 and up for a new game and our dollar is currently worth more than yours :(
Damn right. That's what I want to know. Why the hell do Aussie games cost almost twice as much at launch than elsewhere in the world. Seriously, where is all this extra money going? Then again, the price of most things in Australia is going up freaking high, shit even in Perth there are places selling bottles of water for $4. FOUR DOLLARS. Just makes you want to get everything shipped in, or buy games when you go overseas (for those that are lucky enough to have the money/time to do so).
We really need to make games cheaper over here in Aus.
I'm still amazed Australians throws this out there every once and a while when it's reason is fairly simple and the information why is so easy to obtain. It is because prices are based on certain percentages set by the economy. The Australian economy is quite high (I believe the minimum wage is like 2x that of the US) and prices are adjusted to fit an economy's relative costs. If you try to scale things in a 1:1 fashion you would ruin the global economy. I mean look at the past when the US dollar was like 300: 1 for some countries your buying power in another country becomes ludicrous and left unchecked could cause terrible inflation in the other country. You can't think of it as oh we're paying double the amount that Americans do how unfair, because in reality you paying the same relative amount. You don't see americans complaining how games in places like russia / some of eastern europe cost half of American prices.
Yeah I had a feeling it was pretty much to do with the economy. Just like how everything else in Aus is so much more expensive, including basic living needs, houses and cars. And you are right, the minimum wage is pretty much double the average in the 'states, despite the Aussie dollar being significantly higher nowadays.
Only thing this doesn't take into is tax, which Australians get hit with so hard it probably doesn't get too far off. Well, there are a lot of other things to take into account with that I guess but that's getting into territory I obviously know little about.
I'm also wondering if this affects the local market at all, with people's spending power kinda going into the territory of spending over AUD 100.00 on something that is just for fun. But it really doesn't, whether people complain about prices or not, somehow gamers go out with their addiction money and get all of them at launch, despite anything, so I guess my point has been rendered invalid already anyhow =P
Zetona: If they're not overpriced, then why does their retail price drop so quickly? In a sense, the system would almost be better if year-old games still cost $40 or $50 new, instead of $20. There would be less disincentive to buy it at launch.
Because most people buy the game in the first months after release so once they sell a bunch of games at full price they can afford to drop the price. If the price started at $40 they would have to sell 50% more games to make back the same amount as selling it for $60, but if they sell it for a full $60 to begin with and then drop the price over time they can make most of their money back and then drop the price for those who don't want to pay full price. Also remember that not ever game a company makes is a smash hit or even gets released so not only do they have to cover the cost of the game they are selling but also of any that fail and they still have to have money to continue developing more games. Some game companies are good at making money and probably could afford to drop their prices but are more likely to put it into R&D like Nintendo, but others are not good at making money even at $60 a game like EA. Also this system allows you to buy the game at basically any price you want to so you can decide what a game is worth to you and buy it when it reaches that price. How can you not like a pricing system that allows you to buy a $60 game for $5-20 just by being patient for 6 months?
Darknacht: How can you not like a pricing system that allows you to buy a $60 game for $5-20 just by being patient for 6 months?
"Just being patient for 6 months" is a bit of a condescending way to put it. It's not about patience, it's about people being dumb enough to burn their money "BECUZ OHEMGEE -INSERT AAA TITLE HERE-" and a more rational consumer gets screwed over by the less rational ones.
And this is another reason for why we can't have nice things.
Darknacht: How can you not like a pricing system that allows you to buy a $60 game for $5-20 just by being patient for 6 months?
"Just being patient for 6 months" is a bit of a condescending way to put it. It's not about patience, it's about people being dumb enough to burn their money "BECUZ OHEMGEE -INSERT AAA TITLE HERE-" and a more rational consumer gets screwed over by the less rational ones.
And this is another reason for why we can't have nice things.
I don't see the down side to rational people getting more for their money then dumb short sighed people. Also I don't think buying a game on day one is necessarily dumb, I have bought some games on day one because I wanted to support those who are making the game. And while I understand that this means that AAA games are going to be designed more for the kind of people who lack the impulse control to wait a few months, that does not mean that there are no good games that have come out recently. I still think that having a high price to begin with for those who want it day 1 or who want to give more support to the makers and then have the price drop for those who can afford or are unwilling to pay the full new price is good.
Zetona: I feel like this merits more resentment than I generally see, and it's obviously a factor in used game sales. What do you all think? Should this change? Is it something we'll just have to live with?
It might be too high for you, I think it's reasonable.
On the other hand videogames have never been cheaper, especially if you play on the PC, just as an example super mario 3 was sold at the equivalent of 80 USD. If anything, if you play with a mouse and keyboard and buy on GoG, Amazon and Steam having some self control you will end up with more very good games that you can play at amazingly low prices.
Darknacht: I still think that having a high price to begin with for those who want it day 1 or who want to give more support to the makers and then have the price drop for those who can afford or are unwilling to pay the full new price is good.
This, honestly with my old console library and the pace at which good games are released nowdays, I only buy videogames who's devs i want to support. That's the reason i bought Botanicula or GW 2, while skipping Batman or (a new copy of) ME 3.
VoidWanderer: Our new game price? $99.95 AUD. Go to a currency converter, compare, then get back to me.
If you like EA and play on the PC, find a way to buy it in Mexican Pesos. For some random reason they sell the $59 USD games for $30 bucks.
Zetona: This idea has been stewing in my mind for a while, but some recent visits to Amazon.com really drove the point home.
If there's any indication of how overpriced retail games are, it's how quickly their value drops off. Mass Effect 3, a AAA game launched less than two months ago, was 50% off on Amazon the other day. The sale has ended, but its price is stil $20 less than it was at launch. Many big-name titles from last fall are now in the $30-$40 range on Amazon. Only the very best, highest-rated titles are still worth $50+. Driver: San Francisco came out in September. It's now going for less than $20, as are most games a year or more old. No other medium has anywhere near this level of dramatic price depreciation. The standard price of a Blu-Ray movie on Amazon, for instance, seems to be about $25, the movie's age be damned.
Oftentimes it seems like games and game systems are priced so as to punish the early adopters, or at least make them regret their early adoption. Pay $60 within a launch, buy all the DLC, and then watch as they release a $30 Game of The Year edition with all the bonus content included at no extra charge. I got my Xbox 360 in late 2006. The price was $400 for a 20GB hard drive and a unit that has RRoD'ed on me twice. Now, for the same price, someone can buy an Xbox 360 Slim, which runs quieter, uses less energy, and is more reliable, has a 250GB hard drive, and comes with Kinect and two (admittedly mediocre) games.
I feel like this merits more resentment than I generally see, and it's obviously a factor in used game sales. What do you all think? Should this change? Is it something we'll just have to live with?
In what currency?
I live in Australia, you only get any sympathy from me if your price is in GBP.
If not, please quit complaining!
Our new game price? $99.95 AUD. Go to a currency converter, compare, then get back to me.
Zetona: This idea has been stewing in my mind for a while, but some recent visits to Amazon.com really drove the point home.
If there's any indication of how overpriced retail games are, it's how quickly their value drops off. Mass Effect 3, a AAA game launched less than two months ago, was 50% off on Amazon the other day. The sale has ended, but its price is stil $20 less than it was at launch. Many big-name titles from last fall are now in the $30-$40 range on Amazon. Only the very best, highest-rated titles are still worth $50+. Driver: San Francisco came out in September. It's now going for less than $20, as are most games a year or more old. No other medium has anywhere near this level of dramatic price depreciation. The standard price of a Blu-Ray movie on Amazon, for instance, seems to be about $25, the movie's age be damned.
Oftentimes it seems like games and game systems are priced so as to punish the early adopters, or at least make them regret their early adoption. Pay $60 within a launch, buy all the DLC, and then watch as they release a $30 Game of The Year edition with all the bonus content included at no extra charge. I got my Xbox 360 in late 2006. The price was $400 for a 20GB hard drive and a unit that has RRoD'ed on me twice. Now, for the same price, someone can buy an Xbox 360 Slim, which runs quieter, uses less energy, and is more reliable, has a 250GB hard drive, and comes with Kinect and two (admittedly mediocre) games.
I feel like this merits more resentment than I generally see, and it's obviously a factor in used game sales. What do you all think? Should this change? Is it something we'll just have to live with?
In what currency?
I live in Australia, you only get any sympathy from me if your price is in GBP.
If not, please quit complaining!
Our new game price? $99.95 AUD. Go to a currency converter, compare, then get back to me.
I'm American, admittedly. I'm somewhat familiar with Brazilian gaming prices, though. R$ 180 converts to about $100 US. Speaking of which-how bad is piracy in Australia? Street vendors in Brazil very often sell pirated games because the prices at full retail are ridiculous.
When all the developers dump investors & publishers for fan-funds & all games are downloaded from their website, if they're still charging the same prices as they are now, THEN it will be too high.
TheKasp: No. No, the price is not too high. No one forces you to buy the DLC, 60$ is less than games costed on NES and you don't have to resort to big titles only. My best gaming expiriences of the last years came for a big part from <20€ titles.
NES games were $50 and there was no DLC. Now maybe you do math differently than I do but I do believe that $60+ is more than $50.
If we consider inflation, a copy of Castlevania would run you around $100 today.
Anyway, I personally don't have a problem with the price of games. It is what it is, gaming has always (well, maybe not always, I haven't done extensive research or anything) been an expensive hobby. Always will be.
Zetona: I'm American, admittedly. I'm somewhat familiar with Brazilian gaming prices, though. R$ 180 converts to about $100 US. Speaking of which-how bad is piracy in Australia? Street vendors in Brazil very often sell pirated games because the prices at full retail are ridiculous.
Why would you buy a pirated game, you could get it for free if you want to pirate?
Zetona: This idea has been stewing in my mind for a while, but some recent visits to Amazon.com really drove the point home.
Oh hey. For Aussies, MW2 is still $90 USD. MW3 is $99. A new game on release is anywhere between $100-120 (I just dropped $200 for the GW2 Collector's Edition).
Even though our currency is stronger than yours, we get gouged.
Zetona: I'm American, admittedly. I'm somewhat familiar with Brazilian gaming prices, though. R$ 180 converts to about $100 US. Speaking of which-how bad is piracy in Australia? Street vendors in Brazil very often sell pirated games because the prices at full retail are ridiculous.
Why would you buy a pirated game, you could get it for free if you want to pirate?
Okay okay I can answer this one. The whole thing of downloading it free from the internet instead of buying it from a bootlegger is kinda new, relatively speaking, the tradition still persists. Also a lot of people in brazil have relaly shitty internet connections.
I don't buy consoles, and just upgrade my PC every 6 years or so, so I save money there. I buy my games from online stores, which sometimes have the pre-order limited editions of games for $50, whereas nearby brick and mortar stores sell them for $100. In addition, I ignore most DLC, and get a number of Indie games instead of all AAA titles. They tend to last me a similar amount of time, and are far cheaper.
So I personally don't notice things being way too expensive. Not sure if you can count consoles and the AAA games as being too expensive, from memory consoles are sold at a loss and require game sales to make money off of or something [I'll try to double check that some time], and games cost less these days [Adjusting for inflation] than they did previously. I think its all a matter of perspective though.
The weird thing is, publishers seem to be trying to push past $60 by using DLC. Yes, this is because their production budgets are getting too big but that bubble is going to burst at some point, it's completely unsustainable.
I'm still amazed Australians throws this out there every once and a while when it's reason is fairly simple and the information why is so easy to obtain. It is because prices are based on certain percentages set by the economy. The Australian economy is quite high (I believe the minimum wage is like 2x that of the US) and prices are adjusted to fit an economy's relative costs. If you try to scale things in a 1:1 fashion you would ruin the global economy. I mean look at the past when the US dollar was like 300: 1 for some countries your buying power in another country becomes ludicrous and left unchecked could cause terrible inflation in the other country. You can't think of it as oh we're paying double the amount that Americans do how unfair, because in reality you paying the same relative amount. You don't see americans complaining how games in places like russia / some of eastern europe cost half of American prices.
If you look back, the $100 price first came into effect when our economy wasn't doing to well, and our dollar was worth about half as much as it is now. I always figured that they had to raise the price to $100 to compensate for our dollar being worth half as much as yours, and then just never decided to bring it down.
Zetona: This idea has been stewing in my mind for a while, but some recent visits to Amazon.com really drove the point home.
If there's any indication of how overpriced retail games are, it's how quickly their value drops off. Mass Effect 3, a AAA game launched less than two months ago, was 50% off on Amazon the other day. The sale has ended, but its price is stil $20 less than it was at launch. Many big-name titles from last fall are now in the $30-$40 range on Amazon. Only the very best, highest-rated titles are still worth $50+. Driver: San Francisco came out in September. It's now going for less than $20, as are most games a year or more old. No other medium has anywhere near this level of dramatic price depreciation. The standard price of a Blu-Ray movie on Amazon, for instance, seems to be about $25, the movie's age be damned.
Oftentimes it seems like games and game systems are priced so as to punish the early adopters, or at least make them regret their early adoption. Pay $60 within a launch, buy all the DLC, and then watch as they release a $30 Game of The Year edition with all the bonus content included at no extra charge. I got my Xbox 360 in late 2006. The price was $400 for a 20GB hard drive and a unit that has RRoD'ed on me twice. Now, for the same price, someone can buy an Xbox 360 Slim, which runs quieter, uses less energy, and is more reliable, has a 250GB hard drive, and comes with Kinect and two (admittedly mediocre) games.
I feel like this merits more resentment than I generally see, and it's obviously a factor in used game sales. What do you all think? Should this change? Is it something we'll just have to live with?
They aren't too expensive... at all.
Seriously, where did you get this math?
If they're not overpriced, then why does their retail price drop so quickly? In a sense, the system would almost be better if year-old games still cost $40 or $50 new, instead of $20. There would be less disincentive to buy it at launch.
The Retail price drops due to supply and demand. If they have, say, 300 copies of Enslaved: Odyssey to the West around and there are few who want the game, they will lower the price to get rid of the merchandise and try to increase the demand for the game.
Also, very few people like to wait over a year to two years for a game they want to go down. For example, Skyrim and Modern Warfare 3 are still rather highly priced, despite being on the market for a short time. People still want the games and are still buying them rather regularly. Mass Effect 3 for example, many people returned their games to Amazon, which then got over-stocked, lowered prices, to try and sell them and make some bit of a profit.
LS;S - Supply and Demand regulates most of the Video Game Market.
Wait where did you find those prices oh wait that's right I'm in a country where it's $120 I can see your argument but I would be happy for games to be $70 at launch it's fucking insane especially with online services like steam and origin where the price of dead space 2 which came out ages ago is still $70 bucks. I know that the publisher set the price but they shouldn't be allowed to set it globally it should be like Good old games where it's a global price not for example dead space 2 which came out months ago where it is still $70 in Australia but $20 in the US.
Here in Greece games start as very expensive, usually 60 Euros (some times more) and depending on their value their price gradually drops over time, but no so quickly as in the US. It takes about four to six months to see in some games a price cut. In some other games there is no reduction at all. After a year has passed every game, regardless its value costs half its initial price, or less if it is mediocre. After two years the price usually drops at about 20 Euros, or even 10. I forgot to say I'm reffering to the PS3/Xbox 360 titles. The PC titles are significantly cheaper; brand new big titles rarely exceed the price of 40 Euros, and usually is 30 Euros. A title developed by European, or generally smaller studios costs between 10-20 Euros.
I get what you're saying regarding games, but with consoles you can't really make the same argument. Consoles are hardware, the ability to manufacture hardware get's cheaper over time through both refined designs and general advances in technology which allow slimmer chassis (so the 45nm die shrink on the later generation 360's allowed for a smaller cooling system and less bulky power board to be implemented). It's only expected that has technology advances and allows for cheaper production of things, that the price goes down.
With games though, I do agree. I'm pretty sure the CEO of GOG recently said that game sales (like the infamous Steam sales) actually lower the "percieved" value of games because the vast majority of a games sales (outside of massively anticipated AAA's) will come in the sales. What does this tell you, it says that the game is only worth buying at cut price, not at "full" price. So why not put the "full" price nearer to the "cut" price to begin with. This will both accelerate sales as you're not alienating people who can't afford $60 a time (or $100 elsewhere) AND you're getting more people to buy at "full" price, thus raising the percieved value. For example, sell a big AAA for $40 instead of $60. You'll get more day-1 sales at that full price, which in turn WON'T be people buying later down the line in sales etc.
If first hand games were priced in this way to begin with, i may (read: may) begin to consider the validity of locking out second hand sales. Again, may. The industry needs to prove itself to the customers and consumers that keep it going before they can just throw stuff like that on us.
The thing is most new sales come in the first couple of weeks after launch beyond that you don't get many people buy the game new because they just weren't that interested so the price goes down because there is not that much demand whereas films generally do keep their demand because its something that is easily done as a group so people might go out buy a few films and have some friends round to watch them but due to the decline in local co-op that doesn't really happen with games anymore simply because you need multiple consoles and TV's and it is a bit of a faff
MPerce: I wish prices were lower, but they won't drop until:
1. We stop buying them (that's not gonna happen)
Honestly? Quite possible. Obviously not "everyone stops buying games", but in the current economy, people are far less likely to be conspicuous consumers on games. People are still buying games, but every TOR free weekend, or extended game time message, and every Mass Effect 3 double XP weekend promotion suggests they're not getting the numbers they want.
On top of that, Kickstarter is suggesting an alternate game revenue stream that could honestly upset the publisher model and force them to compete.
The short version is, the game industry is going through what the film industry did forty years ago. We're seeing the publisher model grinding itself to death, and we're witnessing a Renaissance among the indy developers with a lot of top shelf talent defecting.
People aren't going to "stop buying games", but it is actually quite possible that the publishers are going to take a serious hit.
Baldr: At <$3/hour, it is still the cheapest non-commercial media available.
Well, it is commercial media, but you're talking about advertisement dependent media, not commercial media.
And, honestly, that number's still bunk. I've got MMOs with thousands of hours logged play time, that cost me far less than $60.
No they haven't. Back in the mid 90s, CD titles could cost over $100, that's not adjusted for inflation, that was the cost. For most of my gaming life, games have been $50, and that is still the nominal cost for PC players. It's only been in the last two years or so that the $60 price point managed to sneak over onto the PC. Shareware has never had consistent pricing schemes. Torchlight retailed for $20 at release, Terraria for $10. And as Indy games have become more prevalent again, the whole "Video games have always cost 60 dollars." argument starts to degenerate into inaccuracy.
If you want to say that "360 games, or PS3 games, have always been 60 dollars," then sure, but the original XBox and PS2 weren't built around the $60 price point. I'm not saying that you're wrong about games and inflation, just that the price of games has never been mystically locked at $60 bucks.
TheKasp: No. No, the price is not too high. No one forces you to buy the DLC, 60$ is less than games costed on NES and you don't have to resort to big titles only. My best gaming expiriences of the last years came for a big part from <20€ titles.
NES games were $50 and there was no DLC. Now maybe you do math differently than I do but I do believe that $60+ is more than $50.
There were several games for around 700 SEK (which is the Swedish currency) for the NES and the Sega Genesis / Mega Drive, which around that time would be 65-70 dollars. Today that would be $104, but I don't care about the inflation discussion. My point is, I dunno where you are from, but NES games WERE more expensive. That might not have been the case in every country and / or situation, but it was for me. I know I'm simply using anecdotal evidence here, which isn't really evidence at all, and you don't have to take my word for it, but this was the case for me.
OT: No, games are not too expensive. They aren't cheap, but considering the budgets going into a lot of them, I don't personally find them too expensive. Vote with your wallet, people.
No they haven't. Back in the mid 90s, CD titles could cost over $100, that's not adjusted for inflation, that was the cost. For most of my gaming life, games have been $50, and that is still the nominal cost for PC players. It's only been in the last two years or so that the $60 price point managed to sneak over onto the PC. Shareware has never had consistent pricing schemes. Torchlight retailed for $20 at release, Terraria for $10. And as Indy games have become more prevalent again, the whole "Video games have always cost 60 dollars." argument starts to degenerate into inaccuracy.
If you want to say that "360 games, or PS3 games, have always been 60 dollars," then sure, but the original XBox and PS2 weren't built around the $60 price point. I'm not saying that you're wrong about games and inflation, just that the price of games has never been mystically locked at $60 bucks.
Its still been high I remember my parents saying I couldn't get an SNES game because it costs 50 dollars. Hell you don't remember N64 games costing around 54 dollars? These were consoles that came before even the Xbox.
Yes computer games were kind of all over the place depending on which ones you got. Though I didn't start buying computer games till the early 2000s so video games in general have always been around 50-60 dollars, at least for me.
And indie companies just don't count. They don't have the "quality" (as in attention getting big marketing that larger companies have) to ask 60 dollars for a game. Nor did they put as much money into it so they can still make a profit selling it for 20 dollars.
TheKasp: No. No, the price is not too high. No one forces you to buy the DLC, 60$ is less than games costed on NES and you don't have to resort to big titles only. My best gaming expiriences of the last years came for a big part from <20€ titles.
NES games were $50 and there was no DLC. Now maybe you do math differently than I do but I do believe that $60+ is more than $50.
In Canada, NES games averaged $70 and now games average $60. Even without accounting for inflation, the NES games were more expensive.
Oh... and even if they were only $50 in 1990, the inflation for this would mean that the game cost $89.48 today.
Also, Super Mario Bros. 3 cost me $84.99. Today this would be $152.10.
OP: Games (not DLC) are cheaper now. They are driven down by the amount of competition there is out there and not because they are too expensive.
Zetona: This idea has been stewing in my mind for a while, but some recent visits to Amazon.com really drove the point home.
If there's any indication of how overpriced retail games are, it's how quickly their value drops off. Mass Effect 3, a AAA game launched less than two months ago, was 50% off on Amazon the other day. The sale has ended, but its price is stil $20 less than it was at launch. Many big-name titles from last fall are now in the $30-$40 range on Amazon. Only the very best, highest-rated titles are still worth $50+. Driver: San Francisco came out in September. It's now going for less than $20, as are most games a year or more old. No other medium has anywhere near this level of dramatic price depreciation. The standard price of a Blu-Ray movie on Amazon, for instance, seems to be about $25, the movie's age be damned.
Oftentimes it seems like games and game systems are priced so as to punish the early adopters, or at least make them regret their early adoption. Pay $60 within a launch, buy all the DLC, and then watch as they release a $30 Game of The Year edition with all the bonus content included at no extra charge. I got my Xbox 360 in late 2006. The price was $400 for a 20GB hard drive and a unit that has RRoD'ed on me twice. Now, for the same price, someone can buy an Xbox 360 Slim, which runs quieter, uses less energy, and is more reliable, has a 250GB hard drive, and comes with Kinect and two (admittedly mediocre) games.
I feel like this merits more resentment than I generally see, and it's obviously a factor in used game sales. What do you all think? Should this change? Is it something we'll just have to live with?
In what currency?
I live in Australia, you only get any sympathy from me if your price is in GBP.
If not, please quit complaining!
Our new game price? $99.95 AUD. Go to a currency converter, compare, then get back to me.
I'm American, admittedly. I'm somewhat familiar with Brazilian gaming prices, though. R$ 180 converts to about $100 US. Speaking of which-how bad is piracy in Australia? Street vendors in Brazil very often sell pirated games because the prices at full retail are ridiculous.
I am unsure as to the 'piracy' scene here, but as I mainly stick to console gaming from my local EB store, it is very difficult for me to gauge.
Zetona: I feel like this merits more resentment than I generally see, and it's obviously a factor in used game sales. What do you all think? Should this change? Is it something we'll just have to live with?
It might be too high for you, I think it's reasonable.
On the other hand videogames have never been cheaper, especially if you play on the PC, just as an example super mario 3 was sold at the equivalent of 80 USD. If anything, if you play with a mouse and keyboard and buy on GoG, Amazon and Steam having some self control you will end up with more very good games that you can play at amazingly low prices.
Darknacht: I still think that having a high price to begin with for those who want it day 1 or who want to give more support to the makers and then have the price drop for those who can afford or are unwilling to pay the full new price is good.
This, honestly with my old console library and the pace at which good games are released nowdays, I only buy videogames who's devs i want to support. That's the reason i bought Botanicula or GW 2, while skipping Batman or (a new copy of) ME 3.
VoidWanderer: Our new game price? $99.95 AUD. Go to a currency converter, compare, then get back to me.
If you like EA and play on the PC, find a way to buy it in Mexican Pesos. For some random reason they sell the $59 USD games for $30 bucks.
Actually, they have been cheaper. All that study does is compare the price to inflation, without adjusting for wage differences between now and then. Inflation is at an all time high, but wages are also at an all time low; wage increases fell behind the rate of inflation sometime in the 70's, so while $60 may be a smaller percentage of the GDP than it used to be, for Joe Six Pack, it's still a huge chunk of his wages. This is really the same problem with comparing current American prices to current Australian prices.
OT: yes, the prices on games are too damn high. They should be $20-25, same as a DVD, because that's what they're in competition with and they cost a good bit less to make. The most expensive game of all time cost $100 million to make. An average blockbuster movie runs at least $150 million, with some going up to $200 or $300 million. And don't give me that alternative revenue source B.S.. Almost all successful movies make back their budget and make a profit on the initial ticket sales, which tend to run between $10 and $15 a seat. The few successes that don't make it there make it on DVD sales, which top out around $25. TV spots and the like are mostly just using an old movie to advertise for a new one. You know why movies are able to make a profit at such a low price? Because that's how the economy works. You make more money if you sell a lot of items at a low price than if you sell a few at a high price.
Valve understands this; in fact, when they first started cutting their prices for sale, they saw something like four times the increase in sales they were expecting, beyond what even a high school understanding of economics -- which is all one needs to know to understand that lower price = more customers = more money -- would suggest. The studios are leaving money on the table by trying to gouge their existing customers. It's really the same problem the comic book industry had after the 90's; trying to squeeze more and more out of an ever smaller demographic. I mean, comics were once something that everyone read as a kid, and not too long ago. It's now something that only the nerdy do, and something only grown nerds with large amounts of disposable income can afford. Right now, that's where videogames are headed; they're pricing themselves out of their own market, and are in danger of pricing the next generation of consumers so far out of the market that they start playing sports or something instead.
Zack Alklazaris: Its still been high I remember my parents saying I couldn't get an SNES game because it costs 50 dollars. Hell you don't remember N64 games costing around 54 dollars? These were consoles that came before even the Xbox.
I was there, I remember. But the fact is you started with an absolute statement that flat out is not, and was never, true.
Zack Alklazaris: And indie companies just don't count. They don't have the "quality" (as in attention getting big marketing that larger companies have) to ask 60 dollars for a game. Nor did they put as much money into it so they can still make a profit selling it for 20 dollars.
The only place where that statement has any validity is in the current megapublisher environment. You look back 10 or 15 years, not only would you see more publishers, a lot more, you'd also see that a lot of them were much smaller publishing situations built up around supporting a single developer.
I realize this might be hard to grasp but Diablo 2 was an indi game and by that logic couldn't have supported a $50 sticker price. Tack on the expansion and it was $80. To say nothing of Bungie in the 90s, who was running an even tighter margin by being mac only (at first) and still releasing full cost products.
The last two I can think of were Blizzard and Zenimax (Bethesda). Even Bungie once published someone else's game (Abuse), though I can't remember who the actual devs were for that.
Indy titles may be an obscure area of the market today, but they used to be the norm.
Owyn_Merrilin: OT: yes, the prices on games are too damn high. They should be $20-25, same as a DVD, because that's what they're in competition with and they cost a good bit less to make. The most expensive game of all time cost $100 million to make. An average blockbuster movie runs at least $150 million, with some going up to $200 or $300 million. And don't give me that alternative revenue source B.S.. Almost all successful movies make back their budget and make a profit on the initial ticket sales, which tend to run between $10 and $15 a seat. The few successes that don't make it there make it on DVD sales, which top out around $25. TV spots and the like are mostly just using an old movie to advertise for a new one. You know why movies are able to make a profit at such a low price? Because that's how the economy works. You make more money if you sell a lot of items at a low price than if you sell a few at a high price.
The sad fact is, that while this is really sound logic, it's not logic the publishers seem to understand. The idea that "hey, we could sell three times as many copies if we cut the price in half" doesn't seem to enter into it at all. Which is more mind boggling when you consider Torchlight's sales figures. I'd honestly say 20-30 is the sweet spot for game pricing, which is, ironically about where Bluray disks end up (from what I've noticed).
Ironically, the logic that seems to be at work in industry management is that there are X many gamers. If they reduce the price that will not lure new non-gamers to become gamers, rather it will simply cannibalize their profits. Now, my understanding was that this was in fact the philosophy back around ten years ago. I don't know if Modern Warfare shook that perception (it should have), but EA's current tact of playing follow the leader suggests that this thought process is alive and well.
I imagine one of the main reasons that the prices drop so much quicker now is because many more games have multiplayer components now and the online communities tend to drop off significantly with each major game that comes out after it.