"Games are a luxury item." So?

[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.

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..

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.

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.

 

[The Crazy Legs]

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!

 

[A.A.K]

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.

HAHAHAHAHA....$120 for some games in Australia! $60 is a sale!

 

[ResonanceSD]

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.

HAHAHAHAHA....$120 for some games in Australia! $60 is a sale!

Lol I know right? I want to live somewhere where $60 is a normal price for a new game.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

HAHAHAHAHA....$120 for some games in Australia! $60 is a sale!

Lol I know right? I want to live somewhere where $60 is a normal price for a new game.

And I'd love to live somewhere where minimum wage is double where it is here. We've had that little argument to death. Besides, as Jim Sterling noted a couple of weeks ago, better does not mean good. We pay less than you do, but we still pay too much.

 

[LilithSlave]

If games aren't necessary for daily life, doesn't that make them worth less than food?

The entire video game industry is a luxury. I don't see why I should worry about people playing games without paying, when games are a luxury item, and it's not like stealing food from a starving boy or anything like that. Video games are a luxury item, and video game companies are in a luxury industry. People think that because it is a luxury item people shouldn't have a right to enjoy it unless they have a luxurious amount of money. But what of the people making money out of a luxury industry? Does anyone deserve any kind of privilege to begin with(unless they did something really horrible or really good)? In some situations, stealing food is worse than stealing luxury items.

Then there's the fact piracy isn't really stealing anyway. It may be illegal, but that doesn't make it stealing. Piracy doesn't even so much as lessen buying rates, it increases them. Piracy is using information without the consent of someone with a copyright on that information. And it is arguable whether they have the right to say who has the right to use that information since they're selling it and their intention is to distribute it to begin with. And having it doesn't endanger their personal security or anything like that.

 

[ResonanceSD]

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.

HAHAHAHAHA....$120 for some games in Australia! $60 is a sale!

Lol I know right? I want to live somewhere where $60 is a normal price for a new game.

And I'd love to live somewhere where minimum wage is double where it is here. We've had that little argument to death. Besides, as Jim Sterling noted a couple of weeks ago, better does not mean good. We pay less than you do, but we still pay too much.

1) Move. Our unemployment rate is 4.9%

2) If you guys pay too much, and you complain about it, how are we meant to react?

 

[LiquidSolstice]

What if you had no money but you looked at a picture of a Star Wars poster on a library computer hooked up to the internet? Because unless it was properly uploaded by Lucasfilm, it's the exact same crime as downloading a videogame. Copyright infringement is something very different from theft, in terms of both degree and kind, and that's another reason why I can't take the "it's a luxury item" argument seriously; sure, stealing a luxury item is bad. Getting it for free because there's a way to make infinite copies? It's not so clear cut. It reminds me of the replicator in Star Trek; if it existed in real life, its creators would get sued into oblivion for ending poverty.

Fuck, I knew this would happen. Note to self, don't use any analogies on the Escapist - ever. Even if they are not misleading, people will delve into the semantics to find any inconsistencies between the subject matter and the analogy. And given that it's an analogy there are always inconsistencies.

No. No. No. No. I will tell it as straight as possible: games are luxury items, in that they are not required or mandatory in any way. Therefore "I cannot afford it" is absolutely wrong as there is nothing that forces you to spend the money or get the game. Saying "I will pirate this game because I cannot afford it" is an inherently stupid claim to make.

I did not try to say that piracy is anything like stealing. Luxury items are just extras you can go without. That was the whole point. If you cannot afford something you can go without...then why not go without it? Getting illegal access of any sort is not justified because you don't need the luxury items in the first place. That's why they are called so.

I was going to make a long-winded post to explain that nothing the OP has said has changed the fact that games are luxury items and can be priced whatever they are without being "overpriced", but this genius has pretty much said everything that is on my mind.

You don't think games are overpriced. You just don't like the idea of spending a a third of what your console is worth for a single game, and I get that, but saying they're overpriced is idiotic.

"Overpriced" by strict definition is product that is priced more than a reasonable compensated amount (high end Macs are guilty of this, low end 13" MBPs are not, for example). Paying $100 extra for a Sony Vaio soley because it's a Sony is the definition of overpriced. All games that come out these days are $60. It's not because they're overpriced, it's because that is currently the maximum acceptable price that gamers are willing to pay.

We're not in the age of $20-$30 games anymore. As much as you might be brainwashed into thinking that Steam pricing is the way all game prices work, that's not the case.

Deal with it.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

If games aren't necessary for daily life, doesn't that make them worth less than food?

Comparing video games to food is like comparing your left earbud to a pair of oxygen tanks. It makes no sense, please don't bother trying to make it seem so. Games are not necessary for life in the same way that Reeses Peanut Butter Cups are not necessary for life, but you wouldn't compare the price of a video game with that of a Peanut Butter Cup, would you? No? Then let it the fuck go.

Then there's the fact piracy isn't really stealing anyway. It may be illegal, but that doesn't make it stealing. Piracy doesn't even so much as lessen buying rates, it increases them. Piracy is using information without the consent of someone with a copyright on that information. And it is arguable whether they have the right to say who has the right to use that information since they're selling it and their intention is to distribute it to begin with. And having it doesn't endanger their personal security or anything like that.

This sort of reasoning is so idiotic. I don't understand how you don't warnings for basically promoting piracy.

"torrenting a game and cracking it" is not "using information". It's experiencing entertainment that was meant to be paid for. I get the idea of paying for something to compensate someone who created it is a concept that is completely beyond you, but seriously? Dumbing down all piracy to "using information"? Because applications that provide tools and utilities and services are "information" and video games that are meant to entertain in an interactive way are "information". Apologize for piracy some more, why don't you.

It is not arguable to say who has what right to do with their information personally created content. Why? Well, again, as we've hashed this out before, this may be a fucking revelation for you, but it's because they created it.

Their intention is not to distribute it, it is to sell it. Such a distinction is obviously too fucking inconvenient for you.

Whether or not it endangers anyone's personal security is absolute non sequitur and just further confirms how far you'll go to make excuses for, condone, or otherwise apologize piracy. It's getting really, really sad...

 

[General Twinkletoes]

If anyone thinks games aren't overpriced, come to australia, arkham city is still 100 bucks on steam, and last I saw Aussie dollars are worth more then american.

 

[The_Critic]

$60 dollars is rediculous. They do it to make more money cause they are greedy bastards and thats that.

Look at a game like League of Legends that is completely free except for champion skins, completely playable in it's free model, and made so people with money don't have an unfair advantage, yet they still make Millions on millions.

Make a game free, make it good free, spend as much money as you need to make a good product, and people will pay just to keep you going, thats why most MMO's are going the F2P model.

Though admittedly some of them are doing F2P even worst then their monthly subscriptions.

 

[xdiesp]

Don't worry, if you make them into luxury items we will just pirate them. Not that the competition won't put you out of business before too long.

 

[Lady Larunai]

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.

HAHAHAHAHA....$120 for some games in Australia! $60 is a sale!

Lol I know right? I want to live somewhere where $60 is a normal price for a new game.

And I'd love to live somewhere where minimum wage is double where it is here. We've had that little argument to death. Besides, as Jim Sterling noted a couple of weeks ago, better does not mean good. We pay less than you do, but we still pay too much.

1) Move. Our unemployment rate is 4.9%

2) If you guys pay too much, and you complain about it, how are we meant to react?

I've always loved the whole Aussie minimum wage is double ours argument, that works only when things cost the same.. For most things we pay double the American standard.

Though on the note of games being cheaper in the past I have a genesis game with the cover price of $149 brand new, no collectors edition or anything.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

HAHAHAHAHA....$120 for some games in Australia! $60 is a sale!

Lol I know right? I want to live somewhere where $60 is a normal price for a new game.

And I'd love to live somewhere where minimum wage is double where it is here. We've had that little argument to death. Besides, as Jim Sterling noted a couple of weeks ago, better does not mean good. We pay less than you do, but we still pay too much.

1) Move. Our unemployment rate is 4.9%

2) If you guys pay too much, and you complain about it, how are we meant to react?

I've always loved the whole Aussie minimum wage is double ours argument, that works only when things cost the same.. For most things we pay double the American standard.

Though on the note of games being cheaper in the past I have a genesis game with the cover price of $149 brand new, no collectors edition or anything.

I love the whole "Aussies pay twice as much as we do for everything" argument that only works when people earn the same. See why this doesn't work? It's a wash, $120 hurts you guys about as much as $60 does us. And there were a couple of genesis games that were up around $100 in the U.S., too. They had large ROM chips, additional processors, or both on board; cartridge based games could cost a fortune to make.

 

[mjcabooseblu]

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

Having read this, I feel like you have made a personal attack on my intelligence. Brink wasn't just terrible, it was also unoriginal.

Anyway, if a game gives you at least 12 hours of entertainment, you've already beaten out going to a movie theatre. As long as a game can provide 12 solid hours, I feel that my money is well spent.

 

[pure.Wasted]

This sort of reasoning is so idiotic. I don't understand how you don't warnings for basically promoting piracy.

You know who you remind me of? All those guys who say marijuana is baaaaad and should be illegal. Except it's not enough for you that piracy needs to be illegal, we shouldn't be allowed to talk about it, either. Stop your civil discourse, everybody. Quit it! Copyright is flawless!

Have you stopped to consider that some pirates might be ethically opposed to copyright in many of the law's contemporary forms, and are taking advantage of emerging technologies to sabotage the unethical status quo with the only means available to them that might actually yield results? Just curious.