$60 games - A look at value.

[bombadilillo]

The whole point is moot though. People do not like spending 12$ at the theater and they DO complain about it. Apparently people are willing to pay for both.

Personally I only buy games that have a lot of time value. Fallout New Vetgas was last game I bought. Before that it was MW2 to multiplay with friends. Otherwise. Gamefly baby.

Put that on your list.

22$ and month. Average 5 games at 10 hours a game average

.44$ / Hour.

 

[Braedan]

See, while I still think $60 is overpriced after looking at your post, the reason I think it should be lowered is not because I'm entitled.

I think that lowering the price point to around 25-35 dollars would MASSIVELY increase sales. Look at Blops right now. 12.41 Million copies sold, with 8.78 in 'merica. That's only 2% of their population. I see a lot of potential sales lost to a high entry cost.
Lets face it, making the disks themselves costs next to nothing after you recoup development costs.

I dunno, I'm no business major, but it just seems like common sense to me.

EDIT: Actually it's %2.85, so closer to %3...

 

[Madman123456]

I always thought the price tag was a bit unfair and misleading. Considering the time i spent with "Oblivion", not counting the mods and my own modding, although bethesda has made the game to be moddable, i would gladly put down double price for skyrim.

If a publisher said "you know what, this game so very much content, we'll charge you double and you'll be getting off very cheap compared to the normal 10 hour fps!"
I'd be ok with that because we really would be getting off very cheap.
If you do like games like "Oblivion" or maybe "Fallout 3", you'll get a giant amount of content when you compare it to any "Call of duty". I liked Call of Duty" and "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare", and the playtimes of those games are fine. But compared to something like the big epic games the playtime sucks balls.

Maybe if the Price is higher and there are still many People who buy the game, maybe it'll have less bugs

 

[DaMullet]

*snip*

I totally agree, sitting back and listening to classical music isn't the same as watching an action movie and isn't the same hanging out with friends. I know.

But I know going to the movies is going to last less then 2 hours and I can easily drop $15 for that.

Taking a woman out on a date is important, fun, and great, but I won't be surprized if I'm $100 lighter in the morning.

Major video games are this huge undertaking, lasting years of development and a whole team of artists to create. If it lasts me 15 hours in one play through, and costs me $60, that is totally fine price to me.

I had a longer time having fun with a video game then many other types of media. I don't mean to say that the other's are any less important or I don't want to do them because they're more expencive.

This is more of an observation then any real point that was sparked some peole saying that they won't pay $60 for a game unless they were going to get X hours out of it.

Personally, for a game that I know is going to last me over 50 hours, I would gladly pay $80-$90 for.

If Skyrim comes out and its $80, I'll definatly buy it because I know I'm going to get my money's worth.

 

[bombadilillo]

I always thought the price tag was a bit unfair and misleading. Considering the time i spent with "Oblivion", not counting the mods and my own modding, although bethesda has made the game to be moddable, i would gladly put down double price for skyrim.

If a publisher said "you know what, this game so very much content, we'll charge you double and you'll be getting off very cheap compared to the normal 10 hour fps!"
I'd be ok with that because we really would be getting off very cheap.
If you do like games like "Oblivion" or maybe "Fallout 3", you'll get a giant amount of content when you compare it to any "Call of duty". I liked Call of Duty" and "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare", and the playtimes of those games are fine. But compared to something like the big epic games the playtime sucks balls.

Maybe if the Price is higher and there are still many People who buy the game, maybe it'll have less bugs

I am wholy infavor of a sliding scale. Im an fps fan but dont get into multiplayer much. So give me the campaign for 30$ and Multi for 30$. I WILL NOT pay 60$ for a gimped campaign becuase they "focused on mulitplayer"

Im fine with paying full or even more for an epic sized Fallout/Elder scrolls time sink, but no Homefron: I am not a game ninja and I did beat your campaign in less then 5 hours, and I am damn glad you don't have my 60$

 

[DaMullet]

There is one thing you are really forgetting. People do not like to drop $60-70 on a single purchase even if it is going to last them longer then two $30 purchases. The hours of entertainment have absolutely nothing at all to do with why most people complain about the price, its the fact that it is $60. For alot of people that could be all the disposable income they have after bills.

True; its the Wal-mart mindset. Why would I buy something that lasts me 10 times as long when I can buy the crappy version for 1/2 the price?

I don't shop at Wal-mart for that reason, so maybe that's why I don't understand... Hmm.

You are right once you take inflation into account technology as a whole is cheaper then it has ever been. Video games, consoles, etc its all dirt cheap now. Did you know VCRs were over $800 when they first came out, and can you believe people bitched about the ps3s release price.

LOL! Don't forget the $4,000 computers!

 

[Madman123456]

I am wholy infavor of a sliding scale. Im an fps fan but dont get into multiplayer much. So give me the campaign for 30$ and Multi for 30$. I WILL NOT pay 60$ for a gimped campaign becuase they "focused on mulitplayer"

Im fine with paying full or even more for an epic sized Fallout/Elder scrolls time sink, but no Homefron: I am not a game ninja and I did beat your campaign in less then 5 hours, and I am damn glad you don't have my 60$

5 hours for 60 bucks is a ripoff in my opinion. 10 hours minimum, otherwise there's other good games out there.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

Video Game
$60 / 15 hours = $4 per hour

Epic Video Game
$60 / 100 hours = $0.60 per hour

-Edit- I added this in for further comparison
Poor Video Game
$60 / 5 hours = $12 per hour

Night out
$100 / 6 Hours = $16.67 per hour

Blu-Ray Movie
$30 / 1.75 hours = $17.14 Per hour

Movie at the Theatre
$12 / 1.75 hours = $6.88 Per hour

Music Album
$20 / 1 hour = $20 Per hour
-Edit- I took this out because it can't be simplifed like this

Novel
$15 / 5 Hours = $3 per hour
(Cost Reference - http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/top-50-books/
I've also spent myself upto $35 for a book that I REALLY wanted)

As you can see, on a cost per hour of enjoyment, even short video games are one of the best bangs for your buck.

So... Why the hate for the $60 tag? I must be missing something...

OP, you spend way more than you need to on books and blurays (you also only read very short books). Seriously, I've never spent more than $10 on a book short enough to be read in 5 hours and I've never spent more than $20 on a bluray movie.

You seriously need to shop around more so you stop getting ripped off.

 

[funguy2121]

*snip*

I totally agree, sitting back and listening to classical music isn't the same as watching an action movie and isn't the same hanging out with friends. I know.

But I know going to the movies is going to last less then 2 hours and I can easily drop $15 for that.

Taking a woman out on a date is important, fun, and great, but I won't be surprized if I'm $100 lighter in the morning.

Major video games are this huge undertaking, lasting years of development and a whole team of artists to create. If it lasts me 15 hours in one play through, and costs me $60, that is totally fine price to me.

I had a longer time having fun with a video game then many other types of media. I don't mean to say that the other's are any less important or I don't want to do them because they're more expencive.

This is more of an observation then any real point that was sparked some peole saying that they won't pay $60 for a game unless they were going to get X hours out of it.

Personally, for a game that I know is going to last me over 50 hours, I would gladly pay $80-$90 for.

If Skyrim comes out and its $80, I'll definatly buy it because I know I'm going to get my money's worth.

X hours is difficult to measure. If a game is only 6 hours long but it's so badass I'll want to play it again and again, I'll pay $70-80 for it if I can afford it. I still think $50 is a reasonable expectation, but the $10 difference becomes a moot point if it's just a damned good game. If a company continues to put out good products, I'll pay. If they get wishy washy with titles like Prince of Persia, then I don't care how much they spent on artists and programmers.

 

[FinalFreak16]

But anyway, looking at it from a consumer standpoint of dollar value per hour is one thing, but look at it from the other side. Money spent to create the product, plus desired revenue, divided by expected sales. A game that costs 10 million to make and sells 1 million copies, with a 40% profit, should only cost ($10,000,000*1.4)/1,000,000 = $14. Fourteen dollars!!! With a 40% profit!

Assuming the 10mil includes packaging and staff paychecks etc there is still the fact that the income from sales is split between retailers that sell the game and the publisher that published it for you. So charging $14 as you said probably would not give as much profit as you would think.. if any.

 

[DaMullet]

OP, you spend way more than you need to on books and blurays (you also only read very short books). Seriously, I've never spent more than $10 on a book short enough to be read in 5 hours and I've never spent more than $20 on a bluray movie.

You seriously need to shop around more so you stop getting ripped off.

This isn't my spending habbits, its what I see on the shelves that someone, somewhere is buying.

Its not the wal-mart mindset at all. Its because companies realised that making quality products wasnt good for their bottom line. Wal-mart isnt even really cheap compared to anywhere else anymore, often times I find them considerably more expensive. Its the lets say fuck quality that prevents repeat purchases attitude that nearly every single company has taken that is the real cause of this.

Well, it was... (maybe I'm old now?)

I see what you mean though; Tecnology today is so disposible its scary.

But there is still a need for quality.. Hmm... not sure how explain it... Its the reason why people buy Mercedez Benz and Menonite Furniture.

 

[Wolfram23]

But anyway, looking at it from a consumer standpoint of dollar value per hour is one thing, but look at it from the other side. Money spent to create the product, plus desired revenue, divided by expected sales. A game that costs 10 million to make and sells 1 million copies, with a 40% profit, should only cost ($10,000,000*1.4)/1,000,000 = $14. Fourteen dollars!!! With a 40% profit!

Assuming the 10mil includes packaging and staff paychecks etc there is still the fact that the income from sales is split between retailers that sell the game and the publisher that published it for you. So charging $14 as you said probably would not give as much profit as you would think.. if any.

I'm not saying it should cost $14, but that is what it would cost to cover making the game. Perhaps that's what retail outlets buy it for? Retail markup of 100% it's $28... We're still paying more than double that.

What really tickes me off though isn't so much $60 for a game, but $60 for almost any game. Some games should not ever cost that much. It's a non competitive market.

 

[DaMullet]

I'm not saying it should cost $14, but that is what it would cost to cover making the game. Perhaps that's what retail outlets buy it for? Retail markup of 100% it's $28... We're still paying more than double that.

Have you looked at how much running a successful ad campaign is?

Also, let's say there's 50 people on the team for 2 years making an average of $40k a year. With things like WSIB (Worker's comp) and taxes and such its probably costing the company $50-60k a year to have that one employee.

So $50k x 50 people x 2 years = $5 Million

So there's half of the profit right there. Then add on office space, computer upgrades, advertising, etc and that 10 million is easily spent.

What really tickes me off though isn't so much $60 for a game, but $60 for almost any game. Some games should not ever cost that much. It's a non competitive market.

That's kinda my point and problem is that I think $60 for a half decent game is a good price and I have a hard time seeing a major problem with that.

 

[Yopaz]

results may very.

Of course.

I find all your numbers very skewed in favor of your point

Example?

http://www.amazon.com/Gathering-Storm-Wheel-Time/dp/0765341530/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1305746280&sr=8-1
I am pretty sure this is a book you need more than 5 hours to read. It took me a week with 6 hours of readin every day, and I am a fast reader. This book costs 10 dollars, and it probably cost 30 dollar on release. That's less than a dollar per hour of enjoyment.
The fact that a game costs 60 dollars is no guarantee that you'll like it, so you might get 1 hour of agonizing boredom from it.
However, I don't really complain about video game prices. I complain about move prices. For the same reasons you mention. The price compared to how long you can enjoy it is laughable. Your numbers are skewed, but your point is valid.

However, the day games reach a 60 dollar price tag on release here I will scream in joy since it means a major price drop from our usual 100 dollar price tag...

 

[DaMullet]

X hours is difficult to measure. If a game is only 6 hours long but it's so badass I'll want to play it again and again, I'll pay $70-80 for it if I can afford it. I still think $50 is a reasonable expectation, but the $10 difference becomes a moot point if it's just a damned good game. If a company continues to put out good products, I'll pay. If they get wishy washy with titles like Prince of Persia, then I don't care how much they spent on artists and programmers.

Oh yeah, that's they I pointed out that replay value is another topic entirely. Look at Metroid: Zero Mission. I think I played that game a good 10 or more times over and over again.

Its only a 2-3 hours per play through, but you can challenge yourself through replay.

Heck I'm still trying to beat the 1% challenge in Metroid Fusion.... Damn space jumping spider...

 

[retterkl]

If you want to look at value for money compared to how long you get out of a game then you go get an MMO. I bought a 5 year subscription to WWIIOL: Battleground Europe in Oct 2008 and since then i've played it far too much then I should. If we're talking about $ per hour then $500 over 5 years:

$100 year,
$8.3 per month
$0.27777 per day
$0.01157 per hour

And this is for a game which I have played since April 2007, and can play any time I like, with updates happening keeping the game fresh.


I bought Global Agenda last year for $10, and i've sunk 178 hours into it according to Steam (still pales in comparison to WWIIOL) which = $0.056/hour.


So be like me, make sensible purchases and spend no money ever People think $500 is too much to fork out in one go, but the normal subscription for WWIIOL is $14 per month, so that's about $6 saving a month


EDIT: I just looked at the stats page for WWIIOL and did some calculating. I've spent 2058.7 hours spawned in... that doesn't include time spent at map screen, and since this is an FPS/RTS i'd say add at least 1/3 more to that...

THAT'S 85.7 DAYS + MAP SCREEN... I'VE SPENT 3 MONTHS PLAYING 1 GAME. HELP ME!!!!