"Games are a luxury item." So?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

gamma:

Paradoxrifts:

gamma:

Your minimum wage is also MUCH higher than EVERYWHERE ELSE.

Ireland: €8.65/hour (11.07 AUD)
England: (Different rates corresponding to age groups. Over 21 is the one I'm using) 6.08/hour (9.77 AUD)
Australia: 15.51 AUD.

I could go on listing examples, and sure, the cost of living in Australia is a slight bit higher than over here (not much though, our minimum wage isn't sufficient to give people a standard of living any higher than those on social welfare) but you earn more money than everyone else. Why should you have to pay the same?

You honestly believe the extra forty dollars (Very occasionally more.) that Australians have to fork out to buy the game actually mostly goes towards the costs incurred by shipping, marketing and stocking the game over here? Really??

Listen, mate.. this is your lucky day! I've got this deed to this little building down in Sydney, waterside property you understand, one of a kind architecture, nothing else like it in the entire world, you might have even heard of it, the Sydney Opera House.

I'd just like to say something here. First of all, I never said ANYTHING about shipping, marketing or stocking, I'll come back to that later.

Next, ok... I don't know why you felt like putting that whole paragraph in that has nothing to do at all with anything I just said, but whatever floats your boat.

Finally: you're missing my point.

Entirely.

Either that or you're just rambling on about something totally unrelated to what I was saying, but regardless, let me explain what I was trying to get across in a different way.

Australians get paid approximately 4 dollars an hour more than other countries for people on minimum wage. Keeping that in mind, why shouldn't games be charged at higher prices there than everywhere else?

Now, let's examine a kotaku article about this subject from 2010. This article: http://www.kotaku.com.au/2010/11/why-do-videogames-cost-so-much/

Speaking to Mark Langford earlier this month, he revealed that the margins on video games at retail are low, and selling a new game at $79.95 is essentially equivalent to selling at cost price.

Ok. Now. Let's lay out the information we have.

1) Australian's have a higher minimum wage than the majority of other countries.
2) Australian cost of living is higher than other countries (this is everyday essentials: food, shelter, etc.)
3) Selling a new game at ~80 AUD is almost the same as cost price.

Think of it this way. How are they going to pay their staff their wages if they make no money? Retailers can't afford to sell cheaper than they do, because otherwise they'll have to let people go.

So i ask why do digital downloads cost me full price still ? as in the same for the physical copy ? no sales staff, no shipping etc. So the retailers dont cry foul ? bollocks ! If I am business savvy enough to get it cheaper by going directly to the manufacturer then YAY me. I definitely shouldnt have to pay the same just to make a company who rips us off happy.

All this is considered AFTER the fact the company actually decides to ship it's game here to begin with. Then our censorship board steps in stopping a fair share as well, or editing the game to the point is unrecognizable.

Now I don't remember if this just an Urban Legend or the truth, but I remember WoW wasn't intended for release outside of America and it wasn't until people decided to import it for themselves that Blizzard changed its mind. Imagine where the world would be now if it had decided to stick to its guns ? [sarcasm mode on] We'd probably be living on the moon. [sarcasm off]

Scow2:
Where the heck did you get the idea that 8-30 hours of entertainment where you are in control isn't worth $60?

I've never regretted a video-game purchase.

I typically go by the "cinema test" as I call it. Saying the average movie is about two hours long, it works out about 4.30 an hour (if you bring your own snacks). If I get better out of a game, I say it was a good price.

8 hours for a 20 game, no problem. 8 hours for a 40 game, is stretching it a bit.

Scow2:
Where the heck did you get the idea that 8-30 hours of entertainment where you are in control isn't worth $60?

I've never regretted a video-game purchase.

Really? i envy you. i want a refund for sword of the stars 2 so bad

Owyn_Merrilin:
This comes up a lot in discussions about both piracy and the price of games: the argument goes that games are a luxury item, so there's absolutely no reason to complain about the price. The problem is that, first of all, games are a luxury item, but they're a luxury item of the sort that DVDs and books are, and they're priced high enough that they're more in competition with expensive wines and designer clothes, but more importantly, it is still possible to overpay for a luxury item, something that has been the source of many a joke about the nouveaux riches over the years.

You know why this is? Luxury items have price ranges the same as anything else. Just like $5 would be ridiculous for a loaf of white bread and $20 would be ridiculous for a gallon of milk, $10,000 would be ridiculous even for a high end home theater receiver, and $60 is ridiculous for a videogame. Anything can be overpriced, even luxury items -- especially luxury items -- so let's quit pretending videogames can't be overpriced just because they're not an absolute necessity for daily life.

Welcome to the free market, buddy.

Something is officially, objectively overpriced when it is expensive enough that it fails to sell well.

If it's turning a profit, then it's not overpriced. Sure, it might turn even more of a profit if it was cheaper, but none of the publishers want to take that risk. There are only two ways that game prices will ever seriously go down. Either one major publisher cuts their prices, forcing the others to do the same in order to compete, or a major boycott of unheardof proportions forces them to.

kman123:
Move to Australia, then you'll have something to bitch about. We have to pay twice as much while fighting off 6 foot tall spiders on our way to the store.

I see your complaint of the AUD and raise you the NZD! We have it even worse! Plus we have to fight...erm...dinosaurs! Yeah, dinosaurs!

Nouw:

kman123:
Move to Australia, then you'll have something to bitch about. We have to pay twice as much while fighting off 6 foot tall spiders on our way to the store.

I see your complaint of the AUD and raise you the NZD! We have it even worse! Plus we have to fight...erm...dinosaurs! Yeah, dinosaurs!

You guys have the Weta.

Oh, I fucking relent. Those things are terrifying.

kman123:

Nouw:

kman123:
Move to Australia, then you'll have something to bitch about. We have to pay twice as much while fighting off 6 foot tall spiders on our way to the store.

I see your complaint of the AUD and raise you the NZD! We have it even worse! Plus we have to fight...erm...dinosaurs! Yeah, dinosaurs!

You guys have the Weta.

Oh, I fucking relent. Those things are terrifying.

As terrifying as they are, I'd love to see one in real life. They're almost extinct so they're quite a rarity.

NuclearShadow:
Luxury items can be over priced and whomever says otherwise I can only hope isn't a adult because that is just a childish way of thinking. When HDTVs first came out they were over supplied and under bought for their insane price, it went beyond reason even if you factor in at the time it would make the consumer a early adopter. Sales were so much poorer than expected and the main reason was consumers didn't go flocking to buy them like expected.
Even worse there was the lack of HD ready content at this time which just made the price even more unbearable even to those who had the disposable income to purchase one.

Now we see even better HDTV's at much lower prices and they actually compete in price. This ended up being good for the consumer because now people can obtain the product and the companies as now their product is actually selling and making profits. The lowering of prices is what caused this.

But onto video-games. Video games are a product that tries to massively sell. It isn't like a yacht where you can expect to sell a few and walk away with a worth while profit. Instead they have to massively sell and aim to the common person. Now the questions is how do we determine if such a product is overpriced.

Have sales gone down despite supply remaining the same?

Has the popularity of the goods changed at all?

What are recent price changes if any have happened and how have sales been effected?

Are people who are in the same financial situation who buts the product still buying as much?

These lines of questions need to be asked and the answer is usually a obvious one if you apply it to any product.

One thing to also factor in that the game industry doesn't seem to grasp is not all products are worth the same amount. Call of Duty can be $60 because people have shown a willingness to pay it on a massive scale, regardless of what you think of the game. But then you see lesser known games that do not sell nearly as well for the same price tag at release. If the game was more appropriately priced it would actually increase sales and profits as well as help create fanbases on the franchise. This point also serve as a knock out punch to those who think luxury cannot be overpriced.

Would you pay the same amount for this.

image

If it was priced as high as this?

image

You wouldn't would you? Clearly the smaller yacht would be insanely overpriced and it is indeed a luxury item.

Checkmate?

Eh.... no checkmate....

Luxury items are always overpriced. You never needed gold jewellery. You never needed a Ferrari, but you would like one. The price isn't decided by you. It is decided by the market as a whole. Those overpriced boats you showed right there. Someone bought them. Making them the right price for the only 2 it mattered to. Buyer and seller.

"Video games are a product that tries to massively sell"
is where you make your flaw. Video games is a product like any other product.They dont try to massively sell, they try to make massive profit. They do so by selling massively.
If the idea was just to massively sell then just lower the price to 0 and you get max amount of sales, but no profit.

Phlakes:

Woodsey:
Game are a luxury item SO there's no justification for not paying for them. That's a different discussion to what you seem to think people use that statement for (pricing).

This. The argument was only about people trying to justify piracy, and if you can't afford a game, even if the price is a little higher than it probably should be, you work for your next paycheck so you can afford it.

Or you learn how to use the internet to find stuff other than porn (took me years), and get yourself some deals.

No one with a little patience should be paying the full RRP on games these days, because there's no need to.

Woodsey:

No one with a little patience should be paying the full RRP on games these days, because there's no need to.

Yeah, there is if I don't wish to give my money to supermarkets and their ilk. They often sell games at a loss with the expectation you'll make it up for them elsewhere in store, small independent shops are really struggling as they can't make money on new game sales at all. It's surprising how many think independents are being greedy and should reduce their prices!

GoaThief:

Woodsey:

No one with a little patience should be paying the full RRP on games these days, because there's no need to.

Yeah, there is if I don't wish to give my money to supermarkets and their ilk. They often sell games at a loss with the expectation you'll make it up for them elsewhere in store, small independent shops are really struggling as they can't make money on new game sales at all. It's surprising how many think independents are being greedy and should reduce their prices!

It's just business. If they can't afford to be competitive then why are they competing? It's nice of you to support them, but then don't moan about pricing.

(And I was talking about using the likes of Amazon anyway.)

Woodsey:

It's just business. If they can't afford to be competitive then why are they competing? It's nice of you to support them, but then don't moan about pricing.

Who's moaned about pricing?

I won't get into the ethics of big retail vs independent though, 'tis not the time nor place.

GoaThief:

Woodsey:

It's just business. If they can't afford to be competitive then why are they competing? It's nice of you to support them, but then don't moan about pricing.

Who's moaned about pricing?

I won't get into the ethics of big retail vs independent though, 'tis not the time nor place.

This is a thread moaning about pricing, I made a comment knocking people for moaning about pricing, you responded with a comment about pricing. Seemed a fair assumption.

No, I think games are quite fairly priced - better than they've ever been in fact.

I believe the luxury item argument is mainly directed at pirates, as there's no real justification to steal the owners right to set the production costs and scarcity.

Smeatza:

gizmo2300:
Games are not necessary for your basic survival, i.e. it's a luxury item. Same as soda, candy, movies, comics, books, television, and radio. It doesn't really go further than that. You want a hobby? You pay the price. You wanna collect Warhammer Figures? You go lay down the 60 bucks for the figures. You wanna play Arkham City on your handy dandy PS3? You go lay down whatever the price is for games in your country. Arguments like "I pirate to fight anti-piracy programs" are hilarious to me, because you're fighting it by making the problem worse. It's really not simpler, these things take cash to develop, i.e. by buying video games you're funding the survival of your hobby.

Adult clothes are considered luxary items (at least here in the UK). So according to your argument there would be no reason to complain if T-Shirts were on sale for no less than 100.

While I do think it would be much more proactive to simply stop buying games, I can imagine those of us who are in a less fiscaly sound position would feel bad about having to give up a much loved hobby due to their poor financial situation. Especially when it might only have become unaffordable over the past decade.
Hence they complain.

It's fair to say that complaining will achieve nothing but saying they shouldn't complain is nothing short of snobbery.
"I can afford luxary items so why are you complaining."

Okay, so if an alcoholic can't afford beer they should go steal it to feed their addiction? It's safe to say that I don't play new AAA titles every month, I've cut it down to only buying certain big titles, and have been playing more and more free-to-play titles. And no one says you HAVE to buy a title the second it comes out.

gizmo2300:

Smeatza:

gizmo2300:
Games are not necessary for your basic survival, i.e. it's a luxury item. Same as soda, candy, movies, comics, books, television, and radio. It doesn't really go further than that. You want a hobby? You pay the price. You wanna collect Warhammer Figures? You go lay down the 60 bucks for the figures. You wanna play Arkham City on your handy dandy PS3? You go lay down whatever the price is for games in your country. Arguments like "I pirate to fight anti-piracy programs" are hilarious to me, because you're fighting it by making the problem worse. It's really not simpler, these things take cash to develop, i.e. by buying video games you're funding the survival of your hobby.

Adult clothes are considered luxary items (at least here in the UK). So according to your argument there would be no reason to complain if T-Shirts were on sale for no less than 100.

While I do think it would be much more proactive to simply stop buying games, I can imagine those of us who are in a less fiscaly sound position would feel bad about having to give up a much loved hobby due to their poor financial situation. Especially when it might only have become unaffordable over the past decade.
Hence they complain.

It's fair to say that complaining will achieve nothing but saying they shouldn't complain is nothing short of snobbery.
"I can afford luxary items so why are you complaining."

Okay, so if an alcoholic can't afford beer they should go steal it to feed their addiction? It's safe to say that I don't play new AAA titles every month, I've cut it down to only buying certain big titles, and have been playing more and more free-to-play titles. And no one says you HAVE to buy a title the second it comes out.

No, but if they could make their own using the recipe from their favorite brewery (which is, for obvious reasons, cheaper than buying if you have the equipment), nobody would stop them. Copyright infringement is not theft; you're not depriving anyone of what you make a copy of.

Owyn_Merrilin:

gizmo2300:

Smeatza:

Adult clothes are considered luxary items (at least here in the UK). So according to your argument there would be no reason to complain if T-Shirts were on sale for no less than 100.

While I do think it would be much more proactive to simply stop buying games, I can imagine those of us who are in a less fiscaly sound position would feel bad about having to give up a much loved hobby due to their poor financial situation. Especially when it might only have become unaffordable over the past decade.
Hence they complain.

It's fair to say that complaining will achieve nothing but saying they shouldn't complain is nothing short of snobbery.
"I can afford luxary items so why are you complaining."

Okay, so if an alcoholic can't afford beer they should go steal it to feed their addiction? It's safe to say that I don't play new AAA titles every month, I've cut it down to only buying certain big titles, and have been playing more and more free-to-play titles. And no one says you HAVE to buy a title the second it comes out.

No, but if they could make their own using the recipe from their favorite brewery (which is, for obvious reasons, cheaper than buying if you have the equipment), nobody would stop them. Copyright infringement is not theft; you're not depriving anyone of what you make a copy of.

Yeah. But there's a reason we illegalise homebrewing.. okay this argument is mostly related to My biggest problem with piracy which isn't those who's only downloading for self-use. I have a problem with pirates who download games or movies, burn 'em on discs and sell 'em for 2 bucks a piece to folks like co-workers or neighbours.

DVD's are 20-30 bucks here in australia. Brand New games cost almost 100. Now tell me how the hell does that not make it a luxury item.

If people can't afford something they will try and find a way around the system. if all else fails they end up pirating it. The current reason why games are not held in the same steed as Movies and books, is because Games will eventually have an Expiration date.

and people will pirate something they can't get. be it because of international availability, or because they can't afford it.

gizmo2300:

Owyn_Merrilin:

gizmo2300:

Okay, so if an alcoholic can't afford beer they should go steal it to feed their addiction? It's safe to say that I don't play new AAA titles every month, I've cut it down to only buying certain big titles, and have been playing more and more free-to-play titles. And no one says you HAVE to buy a title the second it comes out.

No, but if they could make their own using the recipe from their favorite brewery (which is, for obvious reasons, cheaper than buying if you have the equipment), nobody would stop them. Copyright infringement is not theft; you're not depriving anyone of what you make a copy of.

Yeah. But there's a reason we illegalise homebrewing.. okay this argument is mostly related to My biggest problem with piracy which isn't those who's only downloading for self-use. I have a problem with pirates who download games or movies, burn 'em on discs and sell 'em for 2 bucks a piece to folks like co-workers or neighbours.

I'm not going to push you on the piracy, but just so you know, home brewing is completely legal, at least in the US. Home distilling is illegal, but only because nobody bothers to pay the taxes on it; if you can afford to pay the taxes, even that is technically legal.

Edit: And I agree, commercial pirates suck. They're the reason copyright infringement is illegal in the first place, and the reason the punishments are so high; those laws were never meant to be turned against private citizens making copies in their own home, because nobody predicted the internet.

42:
DVD's are 20-30 bucks here in australia.

They are in the US, too. That's exactly my point: videogames are in the same class of entertainment product as a DVD, but they cost as much as a ticket to disney world. How on earth is that right?

Owyn_Merrilin:
This comes up a lot in discussions about both piracy and the price of games: the argument goes that games are a luxury item, so there's absolutely no reason to complain about the price. The problem is that, first of all, games are a luxury item, but they're a luxury item of the sort that DVDs and books are, and they're priced high enough that they're more in competition with expensive wines and designer clothes, but more importantly, it is still possible to overpay for a luxury item, something that has been the source of many a joke about the nouveaux riches over the years.

You know why this is? Luxury items have price ranges the same as anything else. Just like $5 would be ridiculous for a loaf of white bread and $20 would be ridiculous for a gallon of milk, $10,000 would be ridiculous even for a high end home theater receiver, and $60 is ridiculous for a videogame. Anything can be overpriced, even luxury items -- especially luxury items -- so let's quit pretending videogames can't be overpriced just because they're not an absolute necessity for daily life.

The reason it gets bandied about in piracy discussions is that while you may be able to justify needing money to buy food, shelter, or medical care, it's hard to justify needing a video game that you can play on your several hundred dollar console, or thousand plus dollar PC.

The thing is, with videogames, assigning value on a content basis is notoriously difficult, and as consumers, we've shown we're happy to put up with decreases in content, at the same price mark. So, yeah, I'd say games are overpriced, and getting more so. The point?

Grey Day for Elcia:

MiriaJiyuu:
less than 1 hour of gameplay per $5 I spent -> Really not worth it, get my money back
less than 3 hrs per $5 spent -> Not worth it, but I won't be demanding compensation
less than 5 hrs per $5 spent -> The game wasted enough time for what I paid for it
less than 8 hrs per $5 spent -> The game was definitely worth it's price tag
more than 10 hrs per $5 spent -> I got an amazing deal on this game

You judge the value of a product based on how much of your time it "wasted?" Maybe try looking at from the perspective of "How much did I enjoy this product?"

This mentality some people have of time spent equaling worth really pisses me off.

Don't be stupid, they go hand in hand, of course whether or not I enjoyed it factors in too. I'm not gonna play a game for 60 hours if I don't enjoy playing it.

Owyn_Merrilin:
*OP*

Game companies are out there to make money, why is that so hard to accept? They must make a profit, the more the better. This is very simple. People paint this picture that if a game sells 20m copies, and it cost them 50m to develop it, the company is swimming in cash. They are greedy overcharging corporate bastards who deny the joy of gaming from so many people. And they smell bad too. Game prices have not gone up in a very long time but the cost of making them has. It also seems that people (not saying you, just generally) fail to grasp the fact that when a game sells for $60,00 that does not go directly to the publisher or developer. The publisher gets about 30% of that price, so give or take $18,00. The rest is shop and platform holders profit, distribution, marketing and plain old VAT. And you need to make a profit of your game to develop more games. If it cost you 50m to develop one, expect the next to be about the same or more.

Gaming is a hobby (I'm avoiding using the word luxury here) and, as in any hobby, you are free to choose your "equipment". You can go for the best (AAA games or sport equipment) or you can lower your bar and buy inexpensive "outdated" equipment. You are not entitled to have the best of the best for mere pennies just because you want it.

It seems to me that most people who complain here or elsewhere are very young people; people who may be making minimum wages (I do not mean to insult anyone with this). It does hurt if you cannot play a much anticipated game on release, but that's just how it goes. I am more likely to complain about my rent, electricity bill or the price of food because, well, I need those. As much as I love games I do not actually need them. They are a lux... um, goods that I can live without.

I buy games I think I will like (or part of series I love) new and pay the full price. If I don't have money when the game comes out I wait until I have the money. And I know the release dates of the games I want, I can save money months before I have to pay for them. On those that I am not sure about I wait for the price to drop. This is not hard. There are many games I have on my "me wants" list and I buy them when I can. I do not need them all at once.

And I wish people would stop comparing books and films to games...

Owyn_Merrilin:

LastGreatBlasphemer:
Games are not overpriced. Never have been and never will be.

Game are over funded, which leads abusive business practices and shanking the customer's wallet.

Back when I was a young lad I got the full game for 60 bucks. I wasn't told I could pay 60 bucks and wait two months for more content on the disc and give more money.
I wasn't told that my sixty bucks was only buying half the game.

NOBODY, would give a fuck if Mass Effect were built on the same graphics of KOTOR. Nobody. It would still be just as amazing a game. But these days games are costing hundreds of millions of dollars to make and the best we can hope for from that money is six hours of game play and pretty pretty graphics, and told that we need to pay more than 60 dollars to unlock the full game because the dev's and producers are too fucking greedy.

Games are not to expensive to purchase, they are too expensive to make.

May I ask when you were a young lad? Because when I was a young lad you got the full game for $40, and that was on day one; back then, they dropped quicker and lower than they do today, with bestselling PC games frequently hitting $10 a few years after launch[1]. The only game I remember costing $60 prior to the current gen was the PS1 remake of the first two Lunar games, which were $60 each but were really impressive editions with books, soundtrack CDs, and toys packed in; the equivalent of today's $200 special editions.

By the way, the average cost to make a AAA game is something like $30 million. That sounds like a lot, but your average blockbuster movie is more like $100 million, and those make a profit with a much smaller cost to the end user. The only real factor in the cost of games is what consumers are willing to pay; the publishers were able to give a justification for arbitrarily jacking up the already arbitrary price by $10, so they now cost $60. There's nothing else to the cost, it's completely arbitrary.

I'll also add that movies that are made straight to DvD can hit a $20-30 million dollar budget pretty easy. That means no theatrical release. They still pull in millions of rofit by selling them for 10-20 bucks.

[1] Console games bottomed out at $15 to $20, theoretically thanks to licensing fees.

My internet screwed up.

Jack Rascal:

Owyn_Merrilin:
*OP*

Game companies are out there to make money, why is that so hard to accept? They must make a profit, the more the better. This is very simple. People paint this picture that if a game sells 20m copies, and it cost them 50m to develop it, the company is swimming in cash. They are greedy overcharging corporate bastards who deny the joy of gaming from so many people. And they smell bad too. Game prices have not gone up in a very long time but the cost of making them has. It also seems that people (not saying you, just generally) fail to grasp the fact that when a game sells for $60,00 that does not go directly to the publisher or developer. The publisher gets about 30% of that price, so give or take $18,00. The rest is shop and platform holders profit, distribution, marketing and plain old VAT. And you need to make a profit of your game to develop more games. If it cost you 50m to develop one, expect the next to be about the same or more.

Gaming is a hobby (I'm avoiding using the word luxury here) and, as in any hobby, you are free to choose your "equipment". You can go for the best (AAA games or sport equipment) or you can lower your bar and buy inexpensive "outdated" equipment. You are not entitled to have the best of the best for mere pennies just because you want it.

It seems to me that most people who complain here or elsewhere are very young people; people who may be making minimum wages (I do not mean to insult anyone with this). It does hurt if you cannot play a much anticipated game on release, but that's just how it goes. I am more likely to complain about my rent, electricity bill or the price of food because, well, I need those. As much as I love games I do not actually need them. They are a lux... um, goods that I can live without.

I buy games I think I will like (or part of series I love) new and pay the full price. If I don't have money when the game comes out I wait until I have the money. And I know the release dates of the games I want, I can save money months before I have to pay for them. On those that I am not sure about I wait for the price to drop. This is not hard. There are many games I have on my "me wants" list and I buy them when I can. I do not need them all at once.

And I wish people would stop comparing books and films to games...

The number of games that have sold 20m copies can be counted on one hand and they are mostly multi-platform games. The market has shifted since gaming got started. Games were priced how they were because they were a niche market that didn't expect a lot of sales. Now, the market has embraced them and more people would buy them if they had the cash. All this talk about how used games and piracy are evil, its a consumer looking for a cheaper way to play because publishers are not offering one. I don't know how many times I have had 3-4 games comes out in one month I wanted to play and I had to pick which ones I could get because I can't just buy all of them.

The industry claims innovation is risky, because a game could tank with one bad idea. The reason why is because people wait to see what other people think before buying. Lowering prices would make people more impulsive. This means they will support more titles on a whim than they do now. Or better yet, spend more money accidentally.

(Example: My mom will bitch that a blender costs $20. However, make them $5 and I shit you not, the woman will buy 10 of them because it is such a good deal. I don't claim to understand it, I mention it because its a relevant consumer mindset. The woman will spend $50 on 10 blenders when she only needs 1, yet she thinks $20 for 1 is too much.)

I used to work in sales but have recently landed a new job as a welder. (I went into sales when the price of steel went up and a lay off occured.) I am one of the many middle class Americans out there. Games are too damn high and there is no reason for them to be. As well, there actually is reason to lower them. Doing so would actually stem support for innovation in the industry. Look at how many people picked up Minecraft or throw 15 bucks out to the PSN or XBLA for a 2-5 hour experience. The problem is assuming that the amount of sales being made right now, is all there is available in the market and that they are capitalizing on that. In actuality that is an unknown number and I think it is highly likely there is much more sales out there but the price point is scaring off potential sales. The psychology of consumers at checkoout is something that is not being considered in this price point. The only consumer psychology that is being considered is initial interest with big hype campaigns.

I still don't understand why anyone would defend high prices (unless they're on the companies payroll *cough*).

Jfswift:
I still don't understand why anyone would defend high prices (unless they're on the companies payroll *cough*).

I dont understand why anybody with a job would call game prices high.

Das Boot:

Jfswift:
I still don't understand why anyone would defend high prices (unless they're on the companies payroll *cough*).

I dont understand why anybody with a job would call game prices high.

Because $60 can buy you a yearly pass to Busch Gardens, or most of a single day at Disney World (and that's only because the prices have gone up in the last few years; at the start of this console cycle, $60 was the exact cost of a disney ticket.) Games are in competition with DVDs, not theme park tickets. $60 isn't a lot to a person with a job if it, say, pays for an important repair to their car, but it's a heck of a lot for a throwaway entertainment item.

Edit: Even better example: $40 can buy you a weeks' worth of food if you're poor/cheap. $60 buys you one videogame. Source: Being a college student who dropped the overpriced meal plan to save money and averaged $40 a week on food.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Das Boot:

Jfswift:
I still don't understand why anyone would defend high prices (unless they're on the companies payroll *cough*).

I dont understand why anybody with a job would call game prices high.

Because $60 can buy you a yearly pass to Busch Gardens, or most of a single day at Disney World (and that's only because the prices have gone up in the last few years; at the start of this console cycle, $60 was the exact cost of a disney ticket.) Games are in competition with DVDs, not theme park tickets. $60 isn't a lot to a person with a job if it, say, pays for an important repair to their car, but it's a heck of a lot for a throwaway entertainment item.

But you'll probably only go to Busch Gardens a handful of times throughout the year. And it'll get you in to Disney World, but if you want to eat or drink while you're there you'll get gouged out the ass. And a DVD movie will cost you $20, and get you 1-2 hours of static, non-interactive entertainment, whereas a game will set you back $60, and provide an interactive experience generally with more replay value than the DVD.

Also, with DVDs, in most cases the movie made a profit in the theaters, so DVD sales are mostly just icing on the cake.

Edit: Even better example: $40 can buy you a weeks' worth of food if you're poor/cheap. $60 buys you one videogame. Source: Being a college student who dropped the overpriced meal plan to save money and averaged $40 a week on food.

Foods a necessity, not a luxury, so I don't quite follow..

Owyn_Merrilin:
Because $60 can buy you a yearly pass to Busch Gardens, or most of a single day at Disney World (and that's only because the prices have gone up in the last few years; at the start of this console cycle, $60 was the exact cost of a disney ticket.) Games are in competition with DVDs, not theme park tickets. $60 isn't a lot to a person with a job if it, say, pays for an important repair to their car, but it's a heck of a lot for a throwaway entertainment item.

Games and DVDs provide two completely different experiences. One also appeals an exponentially larger audience, has multiple streams of revenue, and a much longer tail. This allows dvds to be cheaper.

$60 isnt a lot of money because its as you say a single day at Disney World, or a round of golf, or a night at the bar, or dinner for two, gas for a few days, half a hand of baccarat, etc. We spend that much money all the time as if it was nothing and yet when it comes to a game something that could last us weeks or even months its suddenly an outragous price.

You also have to consider that game prices have really not changed all that much in the past twenty years. They dipped in price a little bit last gen because dvds are cheaper to make then cartriges. The cost to make games however has skyrocketed, minimum wages have increased, and the buying power of the dollar has also gone down a lot. When you look at it like that games are actually cheaper now then they have ever been.

Das Boot:

Owyn_Merrilin:
Because $60 can buy you a yearly pass to Busch Gardens, or most of a single day at Disney World (and that's only because the prices have gone up in the last few years; at the start of this console cycle, $60 was the exact cost of a disney ticket.) Games are in competition with DVDs, not theme park tickets. $60 isn't a lot to a person with a job if it, say, pays for an important repair to their car, but it's a heck of a lot for a throwaway entertainment item.

Games and DVDs provide two completely different experiences. One also appeals an exponentially larger audience, has multiple streams of revenue, and a much longer tail. This allows dvds to be cheaper.

$60 isnt a lot of money because its as you say a single day at Disney World, or a round of golf, or a night at the bar, or dinner for two, gas for a few days, half a hand of baccarat, etc. We spend that much money all the time as if it was nothing and yet when it comes to a game something that could last us weeks or even months its suddenly an outragous price.

You also have to consider that game prices have really not changed all that much in the past twenty years. They dipped in price a little bit last gen because dvds are cheaper to make then cartriges. The cost to make games however has skyrocketed, minimum wages have increased, and the buying power of the dollar has also gone down a lot. When you look at it like that games are actually cheaper now then they have ever been.

Do you have any idea how insufferably wealthy you sound right now? A ticket to disney world costs a lot of money. I live in Florida, and most people I know only go if they can score free tickets, because $60 per person is a lot. Also, who the heck plays golf or baccarat? Let alone who has the money to gamble $30 a hand in a card game like that? You really sound like you escaped from a country club here.

As for the rest: just because you keep saying it doesn;t make it true. To the end consumer, a DVD and a game are in the same class of product. It's the publishers' own fault for pricing them so high that the market is limited and the tails are short; they've priced most of the audience out of the market. And given the change in the economy of scale over the years, it's a problem that games haven't come down in price; if the costs to make them are skyrocketing, that's the fault of the publishers, not the consumers. What's more, $30 million (the average cost of a AAA game) really isn't all that much for a large entertainment product. Your average Blockbuster movie costs $100 million to make, and they make money hand over fist selling tickets and DVDs at a sixth to a third of the cost of a videogame.

Buretsu:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Das Boot:

I dont understand why anybody with a job would call game prices high.

Because $60 can buy you a yearly pass to Busch Gardens, or most of a single day at Disney World (and that's only because the prices have gone up in the last few years; at the start of this console cycle, $60 was the exact cost of a disney ticket.) Games are in competition with DVDs, not theme park tickets. $60 isn't a lot to a person with a job if it, say, pays for an important repair to their car, but it's a heck of a lot for a throwaway entertainment item.

But you'll probably only go to Busch Gardens a handful of times throughout the year. And it'll get you in to Disney World, but if you want to eat or drink while you're there you'll get gouged out the ass. And a DVD movie will cost you $20, and get you 1-2 hours of static, non-interactive entertainment, whereas a game will set you back $60, and provide an interactive experience generally with more replay value than the DVD.

Also, with DVDs, in most cases the movie made a profit in the theaters, so DVD sales are mostly just icing on the cake.

Edit: Even better example: $40 can buy you a weeks' worth of food if you're poor/cheap. $60 buys you one videogame. Source: Being a college student who dropped the overpriced meal plan to save money and averaged $40 a week on food.

Foods a necessity, not a luxury, so I don't quite follow..

About Busch Gardens/Disney: the food thing is actually why Busch Gardens can afford to sell year passes for the cost of one ticket; they make enough money just on people buying food, drinks, and souvenirs for it not to matter. Same thing with Disney, really; you'd be amazed at how easy it is to score a free ticket if you live in the area. My real point with that, though, is that a ticket to a major theme park is worth a heck of a lot more to most people than an entertainment product like a DVD or a videogame. The theater/DVD split is meaningless there, and in fact it makes game prices even more indefensible, because it means movies make a profit on an average of $11 per person. DVDs are more favorable to games because they cost $20, and they're also a more similar product to the end user. But either way, movies cost over three times as much to make as videogames, and make a profit charging a third to a sixth of the price of a single videogame.

The food thing was an illustration of how much something costs. Das Boot claimed that $60 should be cheap to anyone with a job. I countered with the fact that a single person could eat for a week and a half on $60, which makes it a considerable chunk of change.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Do you have any idea how insufferably wealthy you sound right now? A ticket to disney world costs a lot of money. I live in Florida, and most people I know only go if they can score free tickets, because $60 per person is a lot. Also, who the heck plays golf or baccarat? Let alone who has the money to gamble $30 a hand in a card game like that? You really sound like you escaped from a country club here.

As for the rest: just because you keep saying it doesn;t make it true. To the end consumer, a DVD and a game are in the same class of product. It's the publishers' own fault for pricing them so high that the market is limited and the tails are short; they've priced most of the audience out of the market. And it's a problem that games haven't come down in price; if the osts to make them are skyrocketing, that's the fault of the publishers, not the consumers. What's more, $30 million (the average cost of a AAA game) really isn't all that much for a large entertainment product. Your average Blockbuster movie costs $100 million to make, and they make money hand over fist selling tickets and DVDs at a sixth to a third of the cost of a videogame.

I should state now that I am not wealthy, I just went to college and got a real job.

I disagree with you in that video games have priced most of the audience out of the market. There just isnt that many people interested in playing video games. Movies on the other hand are something nearly everybody watches. The price to make games has increased because of the demands of consumers. People in general do not want psx area graphics and technology anymore. Have you not seen any of the PC elitests around here? Or the people demanding a new console generation because the current ones are to old? In order to keep up with demands for newer and better games the cost to make them has to go up.

The reason games have such a short tail is because of the nature of the industry. It moves so fast and old technology gets outdated so quickly nobody really wants an old game. Movies on the other hand are different. Its a different experience and other then some CGI the technology really has not changed all that much in the past thirty years.

Also I should mention a hand of baccarat is actually $100 and golf is fucking awesome. Sadly I did not escape from a country club but that would have been awesome. I am mearly a degenerate bastard.

Das Boot:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Do you have any idea how insufferably wealthy you sound right now? A ticket to disney world costs a lot of money. I live in Florida, and most people I know only go if they can score free tickets, because $60 per person is a lot. Also, who the heck plays golf or baccarat? Let alone who has the money to gamble $30 a hand in a card game like that? You really sound like you escaped from a country club here.

As for the rest: just because you keep saying it doesn;t make it true. To the end consumer, a DVD and a game are in the same class of product. It's the publishers' own fault for pricing them so high that the market is limited and the tails are short; they've priced most of the audience out of the market. And it's a problem that games haven't come down in price; if the osts to make them are skyrocketing, that's the fault of the publishers, not the consumers. What's more, $30 million (the average cost of a AAA game) really isn't all that much for a large entertainment product. Your average Blockbuster movie costs $100 million to make, and they make money hand over fist selling tickets and DVDs at a sixth to a third of the cost of a videogame.

I should state now that I am not wealthy, I just went to college and got a real job.

I disagree with you in that video games have priced most of the audience out of the market. There just isnt that many people interested in playing video games. Movies on the other hand are something nearly everybody watches. The price to make games has increased because of the demands of consumers. People in general do not want psx area graphics and technology anymore. Have you not seen any of the PC elitests around here? Or the people demanding a new console generation because the current ones are to old? In order to keep up with demands for newer and better games the cost to make them has to go up.

The reason games have such a short tail is because of the nature of the industry. It moves so fast and old technology gets outdated so quickly nobody really wants an old game. Movies on the other hand are different. Its a different experience and other then some CGI the technology really has not changed all that much in the past thirty years.

Also I should mention a hand of baccarat is actually $100 and golf is fucking awesome. Sadly I did not escape from a country club but that would have been awesome. I am mearly a degenerate bastard.

Nearly everyone plays videogames, too. They just can't afford the $60 releases so they stick to casual games and the very rare AAA game -- usually the latest CoD, FIFA, or Madden release, with an occasional copy of Guitar Hero or Wii Sports thrown into the mix. Games have a short tail because the industry promotes them in a short term blitz and makes sure they're hard to get after that blitz is over. Very few games can be found new for more than a year or so after launch, meanwhile catalog films are being released and re-released every day, going back to the 20's. The market is there, the publishers are just too boneheaded to take advantage of it, too afraid of dropping the $60 price and having to make it up in volume.

As for the rest; you're really not helping yourself. You sound like you got an extremely well paying job, and that's great for you, but not all jobs -- not even all college degree requiring jobs -- earn as much as you do. Considering the kind of things you're implying you do for entertainment, you sound relatively wealthy, upper middle class at the lowest -- and then only because "upper middle class" was redefined about a decade ago to mean "rich but not rich enough that politicians can't trumpet members of that demographic as average joes, much to the annoyance of actual average joes." You don't have to be in the 1% to be wealthy; the top 25-30% will do quite nicely.

MercurySteam:

Daystar Clarion:
Brink? Fuck man, that's 40 quid I wish I'd never spent.

I retuned my copy after three or four days. Glad I got my money back from that pile of crap. That and Duke Nukem Forever.

I rented my copy. One dollar for one day. Was it worth it? ... Considering I spent only a dollar, yeah. If I bought it at full price? F*** NO!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked