EA's Free-To-Play GM Says $60 Games Are "Exploitative"

[maantren]

Shoggoth is right: adjusting for inflation, full priced retail games are much cheaper now than they were 15-20 years ago. A shame, though, that increasing scale hasn't brought new box releases down to a different model, say, $19.95. I guess it's that no one wants to be the first company to release, say, MW3 at that level and risk taking an absolute bath on profit.

Steam's pricing experiments will ultimately lead the way IMO: Gabe Newell has talked about Valve providing pricing as a service to other companies. Free isn't going to be the answer, but neither is $60.

Cheers

Colin

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Didn't N64 games used to cost $80 new? I also remember seeing an old Nintendo Power advertising NES games (it was an old issue) for around $75 a pop. I could be wrong though, my memory is garbage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't N64 games run on cartridges? Cartridges were much more expensive than CDs or DVDs...

I realize the format was different but that does kind of cement the point that games are less expensive now than they were back in the before-time before disc-based gaming was as common as it is now.

 

[maantren]

Consumers are capable of deciding what's worth their money and what they find exploitive. Releasing a compelling product and decide what you think it's worth. Consumers can figure out for themselves whether or not to agree with you. But until you release that product, just shut up.

I think it's more that there are multiple inflection points on the graph of units sold vs price per unit, ie different ways to make the same profit out of a game. And jumping between those points is seen as very risky by publishers. Consumers tend to behave in unpredictable/irrational ways re pricing: Gabe Newell has talked a lot about this.

Cheers

Colin

 

[dagens24]

I just finished Dragon Age Origins, it took me over 60 hours to complete. At $60, a game that gives me 60 of playtime is a good value. $1 for 1 hour on entertainment. Sign me up. I pay $5 an hour to go see a movie (sometimes more if it's a short movie). Going out and drinking is even more expensive.

The moral of the story is that, for the most part, games are an inexpensive entertainment medium for what you're getting.

Also, my estimate was conservative. I've put in more hours then that and this is the ultimate edition so I still have the expansion pack and DLC. So all in all, $60 is nothing for what I'm getting out of it.

 

[RA92]

Didn't N64 games used to cost $80 new? I also remember seeing an old Nintendo Power advertising NES games (it was an old issue) for around $75 a pop. I could be wrong though, my memory is garbage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't N64 games run on cartridges? Cartridges were much more expensive than CDs or DVDs...

I realize the format was different but that does kind of cement the point that games are less expensive now than they were back in the before-time before disc-based gaming was as common as it is now.

Let's not forget the fact that even though digital distribution removes all the physical aspects including shipping and packaging, titles from there are priced the same as retail stores...

 

[Zhukov]

Eh.

Depends on the game.

I am perfectly willing to shell out full price for a good game. I only get pissed when they slap the full price label on the latest piece-of-shit-in-a-box.

 

[Malk_Content]

Statements like Cousin's drive me up the wall.

Here we have a crowd of gamers demanding 60fps hi-def graphics, with high-poly models and high-res skins, with professional voice-acting and sophisticated audio mixing, for over 20 hours of single-player gameplay... but don't charge the little dears more than you would for a browser game; oh, no, that would be exploitative.

I'm normally pretty careful with my language here, but the only response that even remotely approaches my sentiment about people demanding this is, "Fuck 'em." They don't want to pay what it costs to make the game? Fine; they can not buy the game, and keep on being ignored by studios they way car companies ignore crazies on the street demanding $100 cars that run on water.

-- Steve

Would gladly pay the $60 for a 20hr single player experience of that quality. Last time I checked most of the time you pay $60 for a 7-8hr single player experience that sometimes approach that quality.

I do buy games release day new if I think the game is worth it or trust the developer. Been dissapointed a lot recently because of that.

 

[Euhan01]

I'm buying new games less and less. I either rent new games for console or get them on steam. Also buying more XBLA type games on just due to price. Only games I tend to buy close to date are those that are 20+ hours or have some seriously good multiplayer as it wouldn't make sense to rent those for longs periods of time. Even something like Black Ops I would rather rent (although I ended up getting it cheap second hand from a friend) so I can have a quick blast threw single player, try the mulitplayer/zombies for abit, then return.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Let's not forget the fact that even though digital distribution removes all the physical aspects including shipping and packaging, titles from there are priced the same as retail stores...

...which seems ass backwards. One would assume the removal of packaging, manuals, discs and, advertisement inserts would shave off a few dollars. Then again, that sounds like something everyone is guilty of and not just EA. I guess they can charge the same as the retail version and call the added expense a sort of, 'convenience fee'.

Someone above pointed out the irony of EA talking about how charging $60 for a new release is exploitative when compared to free-to-play games when that same company is also implementing $10 subscription fees to play their games online.

So the company that charges people 10 dollars who buy a used copy of a game that costs less than 60 bucks thinks paying 60 bucks is a crazy? Hmmm... somehow I feel not everyone is communicating with each other at EA.

That's the quote. Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right is doing!

 

[GonzoGamer]

What's more those $60 games *ARE* using a microtransaction system, you shell that out, and then there is "DLC", every thing a game company can cut away from a game and sell seperatly they do.

What's more the $60 price point is exploitive, but since people pay it, junkie lke, there is no real reason to lower the price. Heck I'd argue a lot of games cost as much as $100 or more for the full experience when you consider the DLC angle.

I'd like to see the industry change, but in the end all ranting about it doesn't matter since they won't change UNLESS people stop buying the products at the current prices.

My thoughts exactly. Gamers are far too willing to pay $60 for crap mostly (seriously, how many games have you played in the past year that were really worth $60) that I don't see this trend reversing at any time soon. If anything it's just going to get worse and they may not even wait until next gen.
MS already upped the price of xbl gold just because they knew enough gamers would pay it. Same thing with the absurdly priced dlc out there. Activision charges $15 for map packs because they know there are more than enough suckers out there willing to pay it.

On top of that we've been getting far less content in our games this gen. It's like the airline industry, we're paying more for less.
I mentioned this on another thread but if Capcom actually gets the character roster for MvC3 to the same amount as MvC2 by charging $5 for each character, the game will cost $160 by the time it's done.

 

[KeyMaster45]

I'll certainly say my buying habits of games over the past years since the current gen came out has greatly changed. Mostly because of the $60 price tag I've stopped buying all but the biggest games from retail stores.(AC series, Fable, Oblivion) Since I can't really afford to buy games left and right at the $60 price my tastes have shifted more towards the indie market. The prices for the games are generally low thanks to many being purchasable through Steam or from the dev's website itself. Overall I find it to be the lowest risk avenue for investment in my entertainment. At most I lose the price of a night at the movies if a games is bad and I've been lucky that I've enjoyed most if not all of the games I've purchased through Steam.

I suppose the summary of this is that as normal game prices have gone up I've shifted to the indie market and found myself extremely pleased, if not more so, in the quality of the experience I've paid for.

 

[manaman]

Compared to other mediums our price point is fine.
films cost what 15 dollars
thats mayber 2.5 hours
a game costs what 60 dollars
so your willing to pay 4 times it for 4 times the length. 10 hours is a short game in my books. (yes im including multiplayer.

Its an expensive hobby. but not more than people can afford.

Your average film cost five times what it costs to make your average video game. Your comparing the wrong things.

Movies make tremendous amounts of money when they do well, they sale not only discs, but they have a theatrical release as well. Overall they are different experiences and comparing money used to make, vs average sales, sales, vs average profit, is the only real way to compare them. Length of the content has little to do with the pricing.

$60 may not be to much for you, but sales figures show it is for the majority of people. They are becoming more and more selective in what they buy. The titles that make a profit do extremely well, while the majority of titles only break even at best. To many cheaper alternatives to the AAA pricing are out there. More and more people are buying XBLA and PSN games, renting more, and being far more frugal with those titles they do buy.

Even with money to burn I have been disappointed to many times with games over the last few years to justify buying on release anymore. I don't mind waiting, and letting only the games that really prove themselves get my money. I have purchased more games for my phone over the last year then for all the consoles put together.

 

[RA92]

Let's not forget the fact that even though digital distribution removes all the physical aspects including shipping and packaging, titles from there are priced the same as retail stores...

...which seems ass backwards. One would assume the removal of packaging, manuals, discs and, advertisement inserts would shave off a few dollars. Then again, that sounds like something everyone is guilty of and not just EA. I guess they can charge the same as the retail version and call the added expense a sort of, 'convenience fee'.

Err, actually that was my point. I wasn't agreeing with you, I was trying to counter your argument about games being cheaper now than it was before. Maybe I didn't word it properly, but what I was trying to convey was that games are not as cheap as they could be...

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Electronic Arts talks about exploiting.


Really, a Free-to-Play manager says his rivals aren't as good as he is?