games really are not that expensive...

[PureChaos]

well yeah, if you buy old games you can get them cheaply but it's new games that are the problem. Having said that, though games are expensive, in terms of cost per hour of use, they are the second most cost effective items. A new DVD would cost, say, £12, it's 2 hours and you watch it 3 times, that's 6 hours meaning the film cost £2 per hour of use. A new game is, say, £40. Say each run takes 30 hours and you play it 3 times. That's around 44p per hour. If it's a HUGE game and you could get more hours per run which would make the hourly cost even less. And that's a new, expensive game. I got Pokemon LeafGreen for £5 and have cracked up probably 100+ hours in all the runs i've done.

The only think that has a better hourly cost are books.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

How do video games compare cost wise to other mediums like Movies?

I know some movies cost hundreds of millions of dollars yet retail for about $25AUD.
How is the price so different?

Are you responding to me, because I really don't understand your point.

No, I'd have quoted you if I was.

I'm just genuinely interested as to why video games sell for $100AUD but movies about 1/4 of that. Yet movies cost at least as much to produce as a video game.

I can't speak for Oz's inflated prices, but Games are more expensive then Movies because:

A: They do not have anything equivalent to Cinema releases. Films can completely equalise their costs on the Theatrical release alone. DvDs are usually just icing on the cake (or a life line)... a film has already succeeded (or bombed) before the DvD release.

B: Films have a FAR larger demographic. People still forget that for every 100 gamers (casual or hardcore) there are Thouasands of Movie goers and film watchers and that isn't including those gamers who may also watch films.

C: Most games need a long term aftersales support, like patches, community management, Server maintenance etc. Films don't... pay for a ticket, watch the film... pay for a DVD watch the DVD.

Of course, this still doesn't excuse the prices. The games industry, particularly the AAA industry, have some pretty bad business practices. The price is only so high because they want to keep expanding, rather then hitting a plateau and maintaining it.

But don't worry, the industry is hitting a few snags now, and are blatantly getting desperate (look at the controversy of 2nd hand sales). They will have to level out soon, or face fatal losses.

 

[Lilani]

But don't worry, the industry is hitting a few snags now, and are blatantly getting desperate (look at the controversy of 2nd hand sales). They will have to level out soon, or face fatal losses.

Or, even though gamers ***** and moan on forums about wanting lower prices, they still flock by the millions to pay whatever price the publisher offers on release day. Meaning the statistics they have in their meetings all point to most gamers not giving a fuck about what prices they pay.

 

[Starke]

in my opinion games are an incredibly cheap source of entertainment, and pirating is just inexcusably wrong, you can access these games and pay for them and playing them without paying for them is ridiculous, you know what I cant afford? to rent as house in york but that doesn't give me permission to move into a house anyway and then complain to the tenant that they are in the wrong and act like I'm a victim

Yeah, not on the piracy front, but I think you managed to demonstrate that the MSRP doesn't reflect the actual market value of video games these days. That the price tends to sharply drop in the weeks after release is certainly additional evidence of that, and the sales figures for some games, like Torchlight, that eschew the main industry price points is another bit of evidence there.

 

[ElPatron]

Gaming is not too expensive. IF it's too expensive for YOU, just wait for a sale.

Which is an extremely good idea in an industry that is used to make it's biggest profits on the first week after release.

Result? The publishers would play victim and punish the consumer.

EDIT: not everyone has the right to enjoy price drops. In many countries a lot of games retain their release price for months.

No wonder people complain games are expensive if they don't know how to shop. If you buy the shiniest newest thing of course it's going to cost a lot. A luxury 2012 car is more expensive than an economical 2005 car. Just because you're looking at the expensive cars doesn't mean they all are.

I don't think you can compare the two industries.

A 2012 "economical" car will be cheaper than a 2012 "luxury" car. No need to throw 2005 into the mix because you're just adding time as a factor for convenience.

The fact is that 60?-70? (around $95-$105) for a game is too expensive. We shouldn't have to pay more than 45? for new releases because that's only slightly higher than what Americans pay.

The prices are fixed for gaming. At release you're paying 60 bucks and it doesn't matter if it's a Ferrari or a Fiat. You can't compare it with the automobile industry.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

But don't worry, the industry is hitting a few snags now, and are blatantly getting desperate (look at the controversy of 2nd hand sales). They will have to level out soon, or face fatal losses.

Or, even though gamers ***** and moan on forums about wanting lower prices, they still flock by the millions to pay whatever price the publisher offers on release day. Meaning the statistics they have in their meetings all point to most gamers not giving a fuck about what prices they pay.

Yeah, you may think that, but the reality is people can only spend so much. The higher the price goes the less frequently the customer will depart of their hard earned cash. Excluding kids who live out of their parents wallets and aren't paying out for essentials, anyone who is paying bills/rent/mortgage will just pay for old games rather then new games or stop playing games altogether.

Most people only see games as a past time, or a hobby, which are the first things to go if money is tight.

The industry still wants to expand, but due to problems achieving that goal (global economic crises probably not helping) they have started lashing out at legitimate competitive markets. Second hand sales have been around for a long time and only in the last few years have the Companies looked at it in this way. Lionhead Studios have even said it's "worse then piracy"... that is utter baloney. They want to squash a legitimate practice in order to redirect funds back to them.

If you consider all the Studios being axed, the safe bet development cycles and the attempts at putting bad rep into major retail chains (and a dozen other strange acts) it's obvious the industry is feeling the squeeze.

It doesn't matter how willing people are to spend, especially when that money isn't their. I'm lucky to get 1 brand new major release in a year, which means, after I make a choice, I CAN'T pay for any other game. This is something that affects everyone to some degree.

Unfortunately, this means the industry will probably choke on stale rehashed titles before things fall flat, even worse then we have it now. The innovators and risk takers will leave to do indie productions or maybe, if it lives up to its promise, start crowdfunding projects. The AAA industry will then struggle at maintaining it's ever increasingly weary fanbase and it will start to bleed. God knows what else at this point will be "worse then piracy".

 

[tippy2k2]

Gaming is not too expensive. IF it's too expensive for YOU, just wait for a sale.

Which is an extremely good idea in an industry that is used to make it's biggest profits on the first week after release.

Result? The publishers would play victim and punish the consumer.

Hard truth time: That's not my problem [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/features/9183-The-Customer-Doesn-t-Care-About-Your-Burglar], that's the industries problem.

It's up to the industry to convince me that it's worth the $60 and if I feel that it's not, I will not purchase the game until it drops in price (likewise, if I feel that it is worth $60, I'll happily pay it). Gaming is a business and if it can't figure out how to support itself, that sucks but I can get a new hobby.

I said it in the earlier post and I'll say it again. The market dictates the pricing. If gamers are willing to spend $60 on a new game (and they clearly are willing to), why in the hell would the Publishers drop the initial price? Once these $60 buyers clear out, the Publisher THEN drops the price. This continues until it hits the price point you are willing to buy.

EDIT: you put this in after I posted

EDIT: not everyone has the right to enjoy price drops. In many countries a lot of games retain their release price for months.

You know, that's a fair point. THOSE people have a right to complain but I bet if we looked at the "Country of Origin" for the vast majority of posters here, that will not be the case. I suppose I could be wrong but I'm not going to look through everyone's profile to see where they're from.

 

[Cyberjester]

I found some free to play games and some other charity events releasing games for free so I'm going to say that all gaming is inexpensive.

I found exonerating circumstances that aren't applicable to all games so I'm going to say it applies to all games.

D: Aw nu! Someone called me out on it!

Uhhh...

1. I set the rules not you

Well done, you lived down to the standard of the internet and completely failed to sway anyone who would bother arguing against you. If anything you made an argument for the "Games are expensive" camp since you had to pull out free and charity games.

Personally I'd put myself in the "Gaming economics is stupid" camp since Russia paying 20AUD for BF3 release day and Aus paying 90AUD is somewhat ridiculous and arguments like "But the market only charges what the market will pay" doesn't apply to a captive audience who can't source the product from elsewhere. However, you are right in saying exceptions can be found. Kind of like op shopping or stealing for clothes instead of buying new.

 

[shrekfan246]

Gaming overall isn't too expensive, because there are plenty of cheaper options - I accept this.

$60 is (too) expensive so shop smarter - I accept this.

$60 is not too expensive, because you can shop smarter - I don't accept this.

Hey look, here's my opinion on the matter.

Yes, there are cheap options in gaming. In fact, I could just play all of the games I already own instead of buying new ones. But that doesn't change the fact that the $60 price point slapped on new games is pretty crazy.

Of course, games have been pretty expensive for a long time. It's just that now with the prices of development being bloated out so far, shops are needing to spend more to buy the games from the publishers, so the used copies are more expensive as well because they need to recoup their losses, and games are needing to sell more copies to actually see a profit. Publishers only care about games for the first three months. If your game sells 2 million copies over a year, but only sold 250,000 in the first three months, your publisher (assuming you're published by EA or Activision) is going to label it a failure if it was an international launch and on multiple platforms.

So (now for the sensationalist bit) if every single person waited for games to be on sale, the entire industry would crash and burn because the publishers would drop all of their developers, who would soon all be out of jobs. (Dear lord, please don't quote me just to tell me how inaccurate that is. I've already clarified that it's sensationalist and I'm not going to argue with people over pedantry.)

So yeah, there's a problem in the industry right now. Just because it can be cheap doesn't mean it is cheap.

 

[Pebblig]

I think by saying "expensive", these arguments are always meant for NEW on release games, not just any old game. If you want to spend as little as possible, you just shop around or wait a while. As soon as the demand for a game starts to drop, the price'll just drop.

If ya want bargains, there are always bargains...but when people say "games are too expensive" I think they're talking about brand new, on-release, triple-A releases.

 

[Wintermoot]

I sometimes pickup older games on the cheap I rarely buy a 30+ euro title unless I really want it

 

[DoPo]

TLDR: games are very cheap, pirate's are wrong

So the whole thing was to disprove some imaginary pirates you were arguing with in your mind? Cool, I hope you won. That wouldn't work against real pirates but keep going, you might have a decent argument one day. And some time later you might even be ready to argue with pirates. I'll even give you a tip - get a lobotomy to be able to understand the justifications they give you.

no it was to show that although games are expensive if you buy on launch day, if you wait for sales and price drops games are really cheap, and that a lot of people I know pirate because "games are to expensive and I wasn't going to buy it for £40 anyway" which is a retarded argument

See, that is why you need lobotomy, you're thinking this through too much.

And besides I don't understand why you indulge in doublethinking so. I mean, you outright say that games are expensive but then claim that they aren't. They are. If you can buy them cheaper, that doesn't invalidate the first claim. And since you want them to not be expensive, then you do indeed only support that they are.

Finally, yes, you were arguing with imaginary people. You constructed your argument to "counter" what people who aren't here say. And this is strikingly similar to a straw man argument.

 

[kortin]

Games are actually cheaper than movies, at the least. I wouldn't be too sure about books because everyone reads at different speeds, and finding an average speed for ONE book would take too long. Plus the fact that it would only be for that ONE book.

Journey 2: The Mysterious Island released for Blu-ray for $22. Now, this movie's runtime is 1 hour 30 minutes (rounded). Now, an easy way to figure out how much your money is worth. $22 divided by 1.5. That would grab you 14.7. You're spending $14.7 for 45 minutes of the movie. Now, take a game, let's say (for fairness' sake) Call of Duty: Black Ops. The typical amount of time spent on the single player campaign is put down from 5-7 hours. Taking the median (6), you're spending about $10 for one hour of gameplay. So, for that game's single player campaign, you're actually spending less for more gametime.

Simply speaking, games are very often cheaper than movies.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Devs and publishers don't want you to buy their games when they're X years old and dirt-cheap. They want you to buy them at launch. Your argument is invalid.

Yes, because we have to do exactly what the publishers and developers want us to.

Given the tidal wave of consumer empowerment that's been sweeping the gamer populace lately (and given that I don't even totally agree with all of it when it starts verging on entitlement) I find it hard to believe anyone actually believes the quoted statement.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

I see where you're coming from, but making your point that gaming is cheap with games in sales, games that have been around for a long time and have dropped in price, humble bundle and FTP games isn't the best way to do it.
1. Pretty much everything is cheap if you bargain-hunt. That's what bargain hunting is.
2. You can't not buy a game on the assumption that eventually it will either be cheap because it's old or pre-owned, or that it will be in a sale/go FTP/be in a Humble Bundle.
3. Quite often I can't wait for deals and sales because after the amount of time it takes for them to come around, the shops selling games near me (Gamestation and HMV) don't stock them in large quantities.

Plus, that's buying games. Gaming can require you to
-Buy consoles
-Buy new parts for PCs
-Pay for online services
-Pay for DLC
-Buy online passes
etc.

 

[RedDeadFred]

There being ways to play video games for cheap does not negate the fact that $60+ is a lot of money to throw down for a game.

in my opinion it does, I don't need to buy games on release date and when they are brand new, so by waiting I save money, fall of the samuri came out march 15TH for £30 and I bought it on the 3rd of june only 4 months later and saved £25 on it.

the point is that if you are a smart consumer games are a very cheap source of entertainment, if you are a sheep who mindlessly buys max payne on release date then you are allowing yourself to be ripped of and the solution ins't piracy and it isn't complaining to game company's/publishers, it is wising up and spending you're money better

Well aren't you a classy one...
Not wanting to have a new game's plot spoiled means I am a mindless sheep now? Some people buy games partially for their story you know? Maybe you're the type of person who doesn't care about story at all but a lot of other gamers do. Having the plot of a game you really want spoiled sucks. That's why I buy most games that I really care about within a week of their launch.

In the future, think before you go and insult a large group of people.

 

[Iszfury]

I don't think you can count Humble Bundle, steam sales, last gen games, or free to play games and then say that games aren't that expensive.

Yeah, games aren't that expensive when you wait 10 years to buy them (Rome total war), nor are they that expensive when out of the goodness of their heart a bunch of developers allow you to name your price for a game FOR CHARITY.

None of this counts.

None of these completely valid examples of games being marketed the cheaper prices counts? Just because the circumstances happen to result in cheaper prices, which compromises your argument? Mightily convenient.
I'm not following...