Games are too expensive

[OmegaXzors]

If games were $40 initially, I think I'd go bankrupt. I already have a habit of nabbing games when they drop down to $30-40 on Amazon.com, just because I'm like "I'm saving money for a game that has been untouched by filthy fatty disgusting hands!" And that's when I click the buy button.

Happens a lot.

 

[Necrofudge]

Well I've always thought of it as a cycle. The games get more expensive, some people stop paying for them or pirate them, the gaming industry needs money for their fancy lawyers, and then the games get more expensive.

 

[Macgyvercas]

$60 bucks is too expensive for me. I don't really have a lot of income that I can afford to just toss around. I move to lower the price of new game to $50.

 

[linwolf]

40 USD, is the maximum amount I will give for a game. And for that price it have to be a damn good game.
I usually wait a year or two after release date before buying a game.

 

[Keava]

The only problem i really see is difference in price of games between PC and console. I never really understood why the same game costs twice as much on a console as it does on PC.

Other than that i dont really feel the games are too expensive. There is plenty of games i personally consider crappy, but i just dont buy nor play them. I have the choice. Personally i do feel a big decline in game sales is in part also fault of how good actually are the supposed triple A products. In some cases it seems the triple A is just developement/marketing costs and not really gameplay value.

I remember several years ago, in poland games were about 10-15$ more expensive actually yet i bought more per year on avarage than now even tho my salary went up by noticeable ammount since then. Why? Because less games appeal to me.
Might be im just getting old and cranky and its harder to catch my attention just by pretty graphics and constant explosions, but maybe from the ammount of games that come out each month, there is so few actually worth playing i havent decided to buy a single one since ME2 release.

 

[TOGSolid]

I don't think they are that expensive when you look at cost per hour. They're actually pretty cheap that way.

10 hours for $60 is much cheaper than going to a movie or something else.

Yeah, everyone looks at the upfront cost of a game, but in dollars per hour, it's a lot more fair than a lot of other forms of entertainment. A movie ticket where I live is about ten bucks, figure another ten on snacks'n'shit (unless you bring your own) and you're paying about 20 bucks for an hour and a half to two hour flick. A PC Game only costs 50 bucks brand new and will give you about ten hours.

US game prices are very fair, the rest of the world gets completely punked though.

The other problem is that gamers seem to think they're entitled to play the new games. Guess what, you're not. Get a job you vagrants. Get two if all you can manage is being a retail/office slave.

 

[Jibblejab]

In the UK games are creeping up in price.

PS3 Games that are newly released cost between £40 and £50
DS Games that are newly released usually cost between £25 and £35

but ive seen the odd DS game being retailed at 40 which to be honest if a big difference for someone of 14 with little income.

PS3 games will probabally creep up soon, and once they get to £60 im going to stop buying, because thats just rediculous.

MW2 was £50, plus the DLC was £12. So it all adds up

/rant

Hows everyone feeling today? Weather good?

 

[Doctor VonSexMachine]

I don't usually buy new games.
I bought Fallout 3, and L4D2 right when they came out but they were worth it. I also bought Saints Row 2 at release for $50USD and regretted it. I learned not to buy games I'm not too sure about right at release. By waiting a while I was able to get great deals on L4D ($7), DOW-Dark Crusade(can't recall) and OverLord ($5).
Put simply, if a game costs too much, I won't buy it. It's not fun to grudgingly hand over hard earned cash for something that you hope will be entertaining. I'm lucky to know a lot of people who spend a lot of money and time on video games so that I can get a chance to take a look at something before I decide. They can only cost as much as people are willing to pay, so I'll wait around for prices to drop while others happily pay full price.


(And my PC isn't exactly cutting edge, either... so it all works out. A little bit of pity for the console users.)

 

[IamQ]

Hence why I buy used games but OH NO I'M KILLING THE INDUSTRY.

Though it's better than not buying games at all, yes? I really can't justify spending $120 on a video game.

Why would that be better than not buying any games at all?

 

[lwm3398]

Yeah, that seems pretty true. You can just buy it off Amazon or wait for the price to go down. Or do this-

-but that leads to obvious problems outlined in the comic. Used games seems to be the only answer.

 

[shadow skill]

The only problem i really see is difference in price of games between PC and console. I never really understood why the same game costs twice as much on a console as it does on PC.

Other than that i dont really feel the games are too expensive. There is plenty of games i personally consider crappy, but i just dont buy nor play them. I have the choice. Personally i do feel a big decline in game sales is in part also fault of how good actually are the supposed triple A products. In some cases it seems the triple A is just developement/marketing costs and not really gameplay value.

I remember several years ago, in poland games were about 10-15$ more expensive actually yet i bought more per year on avarage than now even tho my salary went up by noticeable ammount since then. Why? Because less games appeal to me.
Might be im just getting old and cranky and its harder to catch my attention just by pretty graphics and constant explosions, but maybe from the ammount of games that come out each month, there is so few actually worth playing i havent decided to buy a single one since ME2 release.

Royalty fees. On consoles there is a fee that people must pay to the console manufacturer to get their product on the system. It is how Nintendo and the like make their money in most cases when it comes to console games.

 

[Gindil]

I'm having trouble following your post. Within the article, the quote reads as two main forms of gaming: downloads and ownership.

Subscriptions

Look at World of Warcraft. You buy the game but you PAY to get an online service.

Ok, but what I believe he was alluding to was more the one hit wonder games. The series such as Need for Speed, Madden, Prince of Persia, or games such as Okami, but for simplicity's sake, he left out or didn't mention MMOs. Seriously, people are STILL playing Warcrack. It's an entity unto itself.

Remember back in Novemeber 2009 Activision were bitching about Dedicated Servers being too expensive for Modern Warfare 2? Well how about they sell the game and then charge per for "tickets" or even "season passes" to access dedicated servers.

Actually, they wanted their own IWNet, not because of dedicated servers being too expensive. Link [http://kotaku.com/5384057/new-modern-warfare-matchmaking-service-will-definitely-reshape-pc-community]

Sure they COULD sell each game at £90, no law is stopping them and I swear hand on heart I knew a manager of Gamestation that thought games should sell at that price... each game the same price as a console. His justification: no game should EVER make a loss, he ACTUALLY THOUGHT that every single game should break even. I said that the reason most games don't break even is those games are crap and deserve to fail.

But lets say that was done, then way fewer will be sold though that may not be a problem if the unit cost counteracts that. The problem comes as this will only increase the affect or re-selling of games.

Hate to say it but that guy fails economics forever. Games are the bread and butter of the games industry, not the console. Even at the $60 range, those games are sold at a pretty good markup to what they may be worth. Selling at a higher profit margin, though he can pursue it, is highly doubtful. Really, who would pay $90 for a game with nothing but a manual, multiplayer and nothing else? They'd have to give a lot more carrot for people to feel like it's worth the extra price.

Consoles are usually sold at a loss anyway, especially in the first year of a console. The Xbox was sold at a loss for ~3 years? I don't remember. Regardless, look what Microsoft did. It weaseled its way into the console market, and charges a fee to developers and consumers to play games online.

This is what it means to have a toll road, folks. They lose $200, they win back $300 on their profit sheet.

One of the reasons the pre-owned market for games is so huge is that people cannot afford games new and when they do get them it uses up so much of their income they need to sell the game they bought to bankroll the next purchase.

Which is I think another reason why the Gamestation Manager was being selfish as greater cost of games means a much higher trade in rate, which is where they make most of their money.

One think[sic] I don't think he considers is £90 per game may even completely destroy the retail business and it goes almost 100% rental based. £90 is a just too large an investment for one person to make in one game, it only ever becomes cost effective by doing the rounds amongst dozens of different users.

I personally have huge faith in Steam's network and the pricing and special offers.

Yes, Steam is a godsend. It's a small DRM, I own the games I pay for, and they update for free. I can't knock it. Now they just need Half Life 3 to come out and then Hell won't freeze over.

 

[PolarBearClub]

The only problem I see is the more well-known branded titles going up in price. MW2 cost ?70 here in Ireland, a tenner over the regular retail price of the most expensive games (obviously not including special editions). Then, they bring out the new map-pack at 1200 MP. Yet people still bought it all (including me for the game) which may only act as an incentive for other publishers to do the same.

 

[Katana314]

Hate to say it but that guy fails economics forever. Games are the bread and butter of the games industry, not the console. Even at the $60 range, those games are sold at a pretty good markup to what they may be worth. Selling at a higher profit margin, though he can pursue it, is highly doubtful. Really, who would pay $90 for a game with nothing but a manual, multiplayer and nothing else?

Sadly, I think everyone would if that were the normal price for games. They'd whine about it and boycott for a few days before giving in and wasting their money on it anyway.

 

[tombman888]

Hence why I buy used games but OH NO I'M KILLING THE INDUSTRY.

Though it's better than not buying games at all, yes? I really can't justify spending $120 on a video game.

basicly this. steam offers are nice tough, in stores L4D2 is $100 new and $80-$60 used, whereas on steam, its only $30, so yay.

 

[Utarefson]

Games are infinitely more expensive than they should be.

Games are information, they can be distributed infinitely and should therefore have no price.

You forgot that people worked on it.Work has value too!

 

[SpireOfFire]

i remember when ps2 games were $50. now xbox 360 games are $60. give it a few years and this generation of games will be cheap again. but for now, yes, games are too expensive.

doesnt stop me from buying them, though...

 

[slowpoke999]

Games in Australia range from 90-120+ Dollars. More for Consoles. Steam was our saving grace because even though we pay in US dollars they are still far cheaper. I say was because now Steam is being forced to raise their prices so EB games can compete.

Omg No no no no no, please for the love of god tell me you are kidding, that was a joke right, how the shit can steam be forced to raise their prices?The whole point of competing business is to put pressure on another one so people can flock to the one with cheaper prices, unless it is the game developers who are forcing steam to raise their prices there is no reason Steam should, if I'm right then shit like this is why Capitalism doesn't work.

*Sigh*It reminds me of that episode of South Park how Mr Garrison invents a new alternative to Airports and makes the Aiport business go bankrupt and the government steps in and shuts his invention down. Dear god I want to go back to the times when that was played for comedy.

 

[banksy122]

Snip

Omg No no no no no, please for the love of god tell me you are kidding, that was a joke right, how the shit can steam be forced to raise their prices?The whole point of competing business is to put pressure on another one so people can flock to the one with cheaper prices, unless it is the game developers who are forcing steam to raise their prices there is no reason Steam should, if I'm right then shit like this is why Capitalism doesn't work.

*Sigh*It reminds me of that episode of South Park how Mr Garrison invents a new alternative to Airports and makes the Aiport business go bankrupt and the government steps in and shuts his invention down. Dear god I want to go back to the times when that was played for comedy.

I wish I was joking, but Games such as Modern Warfare 2, Borderlands, Bad Company 2 etc have had all their prices marked up to around 70-90 Dollars, It is still far cheaper then install but far more expensive then what US and EU users of steam have to pay. Many games are still at US prices but new AAA games are getting their prices raised.