"Games are a luxury item." So?

[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.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I think some games are over priced.

I ultimately value something by the amount of time and enjoyment I got from it.

Monster Hunter? Hundreds of hours of entertainment, well worth the price.

Journey? 2 hours long, but one of the best games I've ever played.

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

This is why I read reviews and opinions, so I can make an informed decision.

Sometimes it goes wrong though...

[sub]I hate you Brink, you suck so much.[/sub]

 

[him over there]

I think some games are over priced.

I ultimately value something by the amount of time and enjoyment I got from it.

Monster Hunter? Hundreds of hours of entertainment, well worth the price.

Journey? 2 hours long, but one of the best games I've ever played.

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

This is why I read reviews and opinions, so I can make an informed decision.

Sometimes it goes wrong though...

[sub]I hate you Brink, you suck so much.[/sub]

But Brink was ambitious dude, it tried so hard you have to be nice to it.

OT: yeah, I whole heartedly agree. Unfortunately this argument will be met with the same old "It isn't overpriced, they can charge whatever they want and if you can't afford it tough shit will of the market vote with your wallet blah blah blah."

 

[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.

 

[tippy2k2]

Stealing a luxury item is wrong, which is why that argument gets brought up (I'm not going to argue if it's stealing or copyright infringement; you're not changing my mind so don't bother random internet user).

As for the price of games, they will sit in their price range as long as the market allows that. We're seeing the $60 price tag drop quicker and quicker (Mass Effect 3 has been out a few months and it already fell to $40). If gamers are willing to pay $60, it will be $60. If companies thought they could charge more, they would. There are very few games that I'll pay $60 for and when I do, it's because I KNOW that it's going to be a favorite of mine.

I think the "luxury item" argument gets brought up for price because some people don't think before they spend and throw down the money no matter the time or quality that they are going to get out of their purchase. They want to feel better about wasting the money when they make a whoops and bring home ET for the Atari (or they don't have $60 and want an excuse to pirate it and/or complain to the internet that the price of games "IS TOO DAMN HIGH!").

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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

 

[StriderShinryu]

I think the luxury item argument, which I totally agree with, is more often used when people approach games as something that they need to have. And not just need to have, but need to have the absolute newest of for not a reasonable price but just one they are willing to pay. They make statements that equate not being able to easily afford the newest $60 AAA release to not being allowed to have any games at all, which is absolutely untrue. Go to your local game store, online store or literally any online digital retailer and you can find multitudes of often good to great games for less than the price of a McDonalds meal.

It is completely true that being able to buy all of the new release titles that you want is something of a luxury. But you don't need to be able to do that to be someone who is playing more great games than you have time for.

None of that invalidates discussions about game prices being too high. As long as the reasoning is realistic (which it often isn't), it's a compelling debate.. but it's in large part something that stands separate from the luxury item topic.

 

[pure.Wasted]

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.

A movie ticket these days ranges from $10 to $20. Now, your first instinct might be that this makes games an even better bargain, for the price of 3.5 Hollywood blockbusters, which will last no longer than 8 hours in total, you can have well over 25 hours of fun.

The problem is there's a difference between AAA quality in film and AAA quality in video games. The acting is going to be much better in film (and there's going to be a lot more of it). The writing is going to be much better in film (most of the time). The music is usually going to much better. And the special effects are going to be incomparably better.

You raise an interesting point about the player being in control, but I would argue that this isn't in and of itself a good thing; it is simply a different thing, and deserves neither a positive nor a negative cost adjustment.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The price range of gaming is so ridiculously wide now that it's difficult to accurately place a definitive average. We have "apps" that cost little to nothing (and are usually worth nothing in hindsight), and AAA giants offering incredible amounts of DLC at gouge-tastic prices.

Or indie games that cost less than a third of the AAA's basic price.
Or MMOs offering the entire spectrum I just described above.

Point being: If you can read this post, there are games that will fit your budget available.
I won't guarantee they will be the games you WANT, but that's the curse of the luxury item.

 

[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.

A movie ticket these days ranges from $10 to $20. Now, your first instinct might be that this makes games an even better bargain, for the price of 3.5 Hollywood blockbusters, which will last no longer than 8 hours in total, you can have well over 25 hours of fun.

The problem is there's a difference between AAA quality in film and AAA quality in video games. The acting is going to be much better in film (and there's going to be a lot more of it). The writing is going to be much better in film (most of the time). The music is usually going to much better. And the special effects are going to be incomparably better.

You raise an interesting point about the player being in control, but I would argue that this isn't in and of itself a good thing; it is simply a different thing, and deserves neither a positive nor a negative cost adjustment.

Why are you playing games instead of watching movies?

I don't play games for the acting or writing. I play games for the damn Gameplay. Also, I cannot say the music is ever better than game music. I have almost 300 songs from assorted games on my MP3 player. I have maybe 3 from movies.

I get a hell of a lot more enjoyment out of Donkey Kong Country 2 than I did watching Tarzan or King Kong. Crimson Skies beat the hell out of Indiana Jones, and the best thing Star Wars ever created was Star Wars Battlefront 2.


Furthermore: for one ticket, you get to watch a movie once - ruined by that asshole who ignores all the requests to turn off her cell phone or those who keep getting up to use the bathroom/get drink refills. Also, each time you play a game, the experience is different, even if the "plot" never changes - how you go about interacting makes all the difference.

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.

I'm calling bullshit on this. Especially now that we've seen how good games can look. And while I'm not normally what one would consider a "Graphics Whore", the improved graphics have also enabled it to have a much higher quality of art than KotoR had. Particularly with the awesome lighting and shininess of the armor!

 

[Screamarie]

Yeah I got hollered at a couple of times for stating a very similar opinion not too long ago. Apparently if I'm not willing to use Steam, then I'm just a horrible crybaby who deserves to be penniless because I enjoy console games. That honestly doesn't make any sense and any one who wants to state a similar opinion go peddle your wares elsewhere cause I ain't buying.

Now I don't know the numbers so I generally don't get too upset about games costing 40 to 60 dollars a pop. For all I know, charging 60 dollars is the only way to be able to afford building the next triple A title. What I do get upset about is when publishers and developers then cry that I buy used or look for ways to save money.

I'm all for supporting an artist and I don't buy used often (I honestly prefer a new copy), but when you're taking a large chunk of a week's paycheck for one game...you can't blame me for trying to save a few bucks.

This is one subject I whole-heartedly agree with Jim Sterling on.

 

[Scow2]

I think part of the problem is people feel entitled to too many games at once: If you have a library of dozens of games, you can't give them the time they need to be fully appreciated.

 

[A-D.]

Games should be cheaper, in general, not just to purchase but also to make. I mean lets face it, with digital distribution on the march, you can knock off 10 bucks of the asking price at least, and the production cost? Well i dont really see how they keep throwing more and more cash at Projects these days, sure when the technology got better, the cost had to rise as a result to make use of it, but shouldnt it even out somewhere? We arent doing giant leaps anymore to warrant spending excessively more to create a game? I can understand MMOs, thats alot of content, workhours and so forth, but why this odd race to have the best and prettiest graphics? Dont get me wrong, graphics are important but i think story and narrative are far more important in games than just being visually impressive.

There's a reason older Games are highly regarded and it aint just Graphics. I once told someone to give Terranigma a try, they did and loved it, thats a game from the SNES. And i still consider that one of the best games i ever played even to this day.

So yeah, i dont really get where all the money is being pumped with most games, the cost just gets higher but we rarely get as big a upgrade. Look at Skyrim, where can we go from there? At least i personally cant see much of a upgrade in terms of graphics, or any necessity of it.

 

[pure.Wasted]

Why are you playing games instead of watching movies?

I don't play games for the acting or writing. I play games for the damn Gameplay.

Playing games for gameplay is your prerogative. That is not all they have to offer. Games provide the player with a uniquely personal connection that no other medium can match. A great book will make you feel as if you know a character inside and out. A great game will make you feel like they're your best friend... or your worst enemy.

To use a GOT example... I don't want to kill Joffrey. I want Robb to kill Joffrey. I don't want Miranda to kill the Illusive Man, I want to kill the Illusive Man. For me, the capabilities of this interactive phenomenon are a thousand times more interesting than running and gunning or jumping from platform to platform could ever hope to be... no matter how much fun I'm having.

And as you can imagine, it's pretty difficult to relate to characters with poor writing, poor animations, and poor voice acting.

 

[Freechoice]

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

Grats on having a sub index on TV Tropes for "Everything trying to kill you".

OT: Eh, I just wait for the inevitable price drop. Blew like 200 bucks on 45+ games. I don't think I've personally bought a game for over 10 dollars.

 

[ResonanceSD]

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

I'd love to see you make that remark after buying an average-looking, mediocre shooter. For $100 USD.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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

You also make twice as much money. And I live in Florida; some asshole imported those 12 foot spiders, and I mean that literally. We've got a naturalized population of Huntsman's spiders, the bastards are everywhere.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

If I'm not planning on playing the game on multiplayer I like to wait for the Steam sales. I actually think pricing is getting a lot better for games lately.