games really are not that expensive...

[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.

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".

As everyone here has been pointing out, you don't HAVE to pay those prices. I could go to Kohl's right now and buy their brand new summer clothes, paying more than $40 and $50 for shirts and more than $50 and $70 for pants. Or, I could wait a while and get those at a discounted price. Or wait for some sort of sale or special to take advantage of.

Now, rather than retyping everything I've said in this thread before, I'm just going to quote myself and call it a day.

I'm pretty sure a LOT of people complain about 40-60 hour single player plus unlimited online multiplayer games being $60 at launch. I rarely see anybody around here specifying certain hours of gameplay they are willing to pay $60 for. Syndicate may have been a bit overpriced based on the single player campaign, but most people aren't complaining about games like Syndicate. It's not the number of hours they have an issue with, it's the price itself, regardless of whether it provides 5 hours of fun or infinite in multiplayer.

Again, here's the way I see it. Name brand jeans are always way beyond what reasonable people want to pay when they first hit the racks. After a few months, they get marked down a few times, and eventually end up on clearance. And then there are lots of retail sales and special deals and discounts inbetween you can use to tick off even more dollars. So you end up getting a $80 pair of jeans for $20 or $30, and all you had to do was wait and clip coupons.

Complaining about launch prices is like complaining about ANY sort of price when something first hits the market. Everything is more expensive when it first comes out. We all know that. Yet for some reason, a lot of gamers seem to think the video games market shouldn't be subject to the same phenomenon. While I would agree that games should have more of a trial period for consumers and better return policies for products we aren't satisfied with (or at least some sort of return policy for digitally purchased games), to expect games to be cheap on launch day is just silly.

Of course they cost more than they're worth on launch day, because they know the people who want it regardless of price will pay that ridiculous price. Every other market does it, it's called supply and demand. But as far as I know, every other market isn't filled with people who pay those inflated prices and then fucking whine about how it's breaking their bank and that they deserve better.

Exactly. It seems to be a lot easier for people to pass on an awesome pair of jeans for a while than it is to pass on a game for a while.

But either way, if you can't help yourself and buy that pair of jeans at its top price, you can't blame the manufacturer for the decision you made. Had you waited for a better price, you wouldn't have contributed to the manufacturer's numbers for initial sales. Which means you were subtly telling the manufacturer their product wasn't worth that price. That's another thing gamers haven't quite gotten the hang of yet--voting with your wallet, and making what you purchase reflect what you value as a consumer. They claim low prices are what they value, but when they pay $60 on launch day, they are telling the publisher what they value is getting the game ASAP no matter what the cost.

All products cost the most when they are first released because manufacturers know the people who want those products sooner rather than cheaper will pay those prices. It's a fact of marketing. For gamers to think the games industry should be impervious to the same functions of a free market is sheer arrogance on their part. If what you value as a consumer is lower prices, then wait for the lower prices. If you don't like the high prices at release, then don't pay the high prices at release. If you think the price is too high, then don't fucking pay the price. Stop telling the publisher you value getting the game sooner over getting the game cheaper. And don't sit here and try to legitimize yourself when publishers aren't answering your prayers for cheaper games, because you are telling them by adding to their sales statistics that you are perfectly fine with whatever price they offer.

You don't need that game at launch, just as I don't need that cute summer blouse when it first hits the racks. And if you do want it so badly, then spend your money better so that you can pay rent and get the game of your desire. My God. If you're having trouble deciding if you should get the game you want at launch or if you should pay your fucking rent, you need some fucking help.

Could they deal with piracy better? Yes. But that doesn't mean consumers should expect the industry as a whole to exist in a little bubble completely impervious to supply and demand, and perfectly normal and accepted market trends.

 

[Iszfury]

Should I also note that any enthusiast of the medium who actually makes a large investment in purchases is going to feel "games are too expensive" regardless? Of course, games ARE expensive, yet not at all when contrasted with the steepness of their production cost and overall depth of the experience. Developers can't regurgitate games at a whim; the production process is almost always extremely time-consuming and laborious, even for smaller projects. I mean, it's damned three-dimensional interactive entertainment. Of course it's going to cost a significant sum of money. Note that most people don't buy games on a weekly/monthly basis.

I mean, I just had a carton of milk cost me $6 USD ><"! 10 cartons of milk for virtual reality?!? We're lucky games don't cost more.

 

[spekkio9]

Sooo you guys still fail to acknowledge that developers consider the sale and purchase of used games in the same light as piracy. It's great that you can bargain hunt now, but what happens if the game industry wins a court battle and used games suddenly go away?

What about the more likely case that publishers continue to take less innovative risks since they don't make a dime on used games, ultimately dooming the industry in stagnation?

In the eyes of many publishers, if you're going to buy a used game, you might as well have saved $20 and downloaded it on the net for free.

 

[Soopy]

Second hand games don't hurt new sales.

Most people are buying second hand because brand new is too expensive. So if you remove the second hand titles, you'll just have less people experience a game.

 

[Lilani]

Sooo you guys still fail to acknowledge that developers consider the sale and purchase of used games in the same light as piracy. It's great that you can bargain hunt now, but what happens if the game industry wins a court battle and used games suddenly go away?

What about the more likely case that publishers continue to take less innovative risks since they don't make a dime on used games, ultimately dooming the industry in stagnation?

In the eyes of many publishers, if you're going to buy a used game, you might as well have saved $20 and downloaded it on the net for free.

The only reason they are trying to clamp down on used games is because since they are such a new thing with games, they are hoping the lack of precedence causes enough legal ambiguity for them to quietly put used retailers out of business.

But it won't work in the long run, for two reasons. One, they would be basically putting the retailers out of business for doing something that is perfectly legal in every other media market, which is something no court would allow them to do. It simply defies what a free market is. Car manufacturers have tried to put used car dealerships out in the past, and it simply hasn't worked. And two, they still rely heavily on those very same retailers for getting their physical games out. Yes digital is slowly taking over, but they still need them for now so they know they have to dread lightly at the risk of the retailers making their lives even harder (by either refusing to sell their products, or by further sweetening their used deals).

Publishers are having so much trouble with this and piracy because they can't get their heads around the fact that the market is changing. The market is no longer centered around people buying their products, the market is centered around them making their customers happy. The business between producer and consumer no longer ends at the point of purchase. It goes on and on, through multiplayer and online support.

Valve has the right idea. But other publishers are still running around in circles, pissing people off on a nearly daily basis and ignorant as to why they can't seem to do anything right anymore. But in the end, during transitions like this corporations will always either move to where the money is or die. So in the next few years, we will bear witness as to which developers begin to provide good customer service, and which developers don't adapt and allow themselves to rendered irrelevant.

 

[Danzavare]

30 minutes writing a reply and the stupid ass computer deletes it, GAH!

Short Version:
- Gaming as a hobby isn't necessarily expensive, but new games are.
- With a few exceptions I tend to stick to bargain bins which, at least in my stores, are the main draw of consumers (Outside of preorder pickup days for anticipated releases).
- In my experience the current price range ($80-$100 AUS) for new games is polarising, people tend to either preorder/buy at release or wait for the bargain bin.
- Current base price makes games not viable as impulse buys for most people, make even seemingly good discount rates (e.g. 25%) seem unattractive because $75 is still a lot of money and, largely because of the second reason, waiting for the bargain bin just seems worthwhile (I save $80 on most games).
- A lower base price would make games more realistic as impulse buys, would make small discounts more meaningful and makes waiting less worthwhile.
- I bought Deus Ex: Human Revolution at $20 at the start of this year, it retailed at $100 August 25th. I bought it out of a bargain bin in JB-Hi-Fi, it wasn't a rare deal, I had seen it in a few other stores for that price too. I may just be lucky with my regular stores, but I find myself having to wait less and less for most games to hit bargain bins.
- I imagine the polarisation of full price and bargain bin consumers is less than ideal. I imagine it'd be easier to work with a price that has much less polarisation to it.

Personally, I own a lot of games (including many mainstream hits) that I got at bargain bin prices. I don't need a lower base price. I would like one, sure. If I could get a new game for $40-$50 I'm more likely to buy something like Dragon's Dogma or SCV outright. A $10-$15 discount on those prices would have jumping at games. I'd be less inclined to wait if I was only saving $20 by waiting (instead of the $80 I save now) and I'm sure I, like many others, would be buying new a lot more frequently if this were the case. I don't need any of that, I don't have to wait too long for bargain bin prices nowadays, but I'd prefer it. I imagine it'd be preferable for companies to be able to have a more steady profit rather than a polarised one. I imagine it's easier to gauge future funding if the amount your earning per game doesn't vary as much. I'd think opening new games to more potential customers could be a really good thing sales wise.

But hey, I'm no business analyst or economist, my experience is based on what I've seen across 8 or so different stores I frequent.

Captcha: surf and turf

Edit: When I say 'bargain bin', I'm not referring to pre-owned games. My games are technically new (as in unused), but usually not too new (as in close to release date). What? I'm snooty like that. : P

 

[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.

Well, spoilers are largely avoidable if one has some measure of self-restraint and doesn't go seeking them out, and even if spoilers, knowing the direction of the plot doesn't prevent enjoyment of the game play. And if all one really cares about is plot, it's cheaper to buy a DVD or two or even three for the same price as a brand new video game.

He has a valid point, even if he did senselessly insult people trying to make it.

Spoilers are much harder to avoid than you might think if you play online games. I was low on money around the release of Red Dead Redemption so I had to wait a month before I could buy it. About two weeks after the release I was playing a match of LoL. One of the enemies decided to start ranting about the ending of RDR in all chat.
Having a plot spoiled doesn't completely ruin a game for me but it does decrease my enjoyment significantly. The ending of RDR was far less impactful than many other people have said because I was expecting it.
I think he has a valid point when it comes to games that don't rely on their story like MW3 but I don't play those kinds of games very much and when I do, I buy them used.

 

[HarryScull]

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.

No, but that 2005 econobox is going to be an absolute shitheap. I'd rather spend the premium on the nice car than drive something I'm going to hate and never be comfortable in...literally comfortable in.



I've never been in or driven an economy car that was comfortable or roomy enough for someone who's six feet tall. I doubt such a thing even exists.

the results
shogun 2 total war (amazon sale)

Absolute tripe and ran like ass.

fall of the samurai (amazon sale)
rome total war gold edition (steam sale)

Yawnsville.

amnesia (humble bundle)

Has exactly 0 replayability, only worth about 5 pounds to me because of that.

limbo (humble bundle)

Bleh, uninteresting 2D sidescroller with a strange hate for color.

psyconauts (humble bundle)

Everyone and their grandmother says this is good, so my built-in "This is overhyped" detector goes off every time I think about buying it.

bastion (humble bundle)

Saw the WTF Is of this. Wasn't impressed.

super brothers sword and sorcery (humble bundle)

Never even heard of it.

old version of minecraft (minecraft.com)

lol. The current $25 version got boring after a fashion. Having a version severely out of date would get boring so fast because there's no mod support anymore.

team fortress 2 (steam)

Only really good if you don't mind multiplayer. I'm not exactly fond of it and buy only for SP so I got bored pretty quick. Got my copy in the Orange Box a few years ago. It is 100% free though, and comes with all DLC 100% free, so it's not like you're out much for trying it.

and a huge amount of flash games, many of which were ore fun than the full blown retail games, such as portal, pandemic 2, bloons, box head, and around 20+ more

If it's coded in flash it can't be that good. Flash is a rubbish language full of memory leaks and pathetic animations. I've never seen or played a flash game that was worth even one pound, let alone five.

this is a huge amount of games some of which I have put 100+ hours in already and some I haven't even had chance to install/download yet and this makes video gaming by far the cheapest form of entertainment I have, to put in perspective I pay around 5£ for 1 hour of kickboxing lessons..or rome total war gold edition which I have an embarrassing amount of time on

And I have 675 hours on Garry's Mod at time of posting. That's only about 7 pounds. Why didn't you mention that instead of the crummy horribad out of date minecraft version?

why are you criticiseing me for buying games you don't like? I have enjoyed each and every one, and the challenge was to see how much enjoyment I could get spending less than £5 a game and how long I could go without spending more than £5 a game, to put it bluntly how much you enjoy the games I chose is irrelevant

 

[Girl With One Eye]

Well I stopped buying new games and got lovefilm instead. I only buy a game now if I really want it to be part of my collection, but games I just want to mess around with for a bit I rent them. It's a much better and cheaper way in my opinion.

 

[HarryScull]

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.

Well, spoilers are largely avoidable if one has some measure of self-restraint and doesn't go seeking them out, and even if spoilers, knowing the direction of the plot doesn't prevent enjoyment of the game play. And if all one really cares about is plot, it's cheaper to buy a DVD or two or even three for the same price as a brand new video game.

He has a valid point, even if he did senselessly insult people trying to make it.

Spoilers are much harder to avoid than you might think if you play online games. I was low on money around the release of Red Dead Redemption so I had to wait a month before I could buy it. About two weeks after the release I was playing a match of LoL. One of the enemies decided to start ranting about the ending of RDR in all chat.
Having a plot spoiled doesn't completely ruin a game for me but it does decrease my enjoyment significantly. The ending of RDR was far less impactful than many other people have said because I was expecting it.
I think he has a valI'd point when it comes to games that don't rely on their story like MW3 but I don't play those kinds of games very much and when I do, I buy them used.

In this comment I used max payne for a reason as it isn't a very story driven game, but on the subject of spoilers I still haven't bought mass effect 3 and still don't know anything about the story, except that a lot of people complained about the ending and some people have an "indoctrination theory" in my mind that will barely change the game for me and when the game drops to the £15 mark it will still be well worth buying

 

[Aeonknight]

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 always assumed the economics of it are thus:

1. Movies have multiple dips. They can run in the theater and make a ton of money. They then get released on DVD/Blu-Ray and make a ton more money.
2. Wider audience. While it takes movies more turns to make the same money as games, they have a MUCH wider audience. Do you know anyone that doesn't own a DVD player (probably not)? Now do you know someone who doesn't own a 360 (probably multiple people)? Grandma will buy Twilight on DVD but I doubt Grandma will be buying...whatever gaming's equivalent to Twilight is (Barbie's Horse Adventure?).
3. Timelessness. I think this one gets overlooked a lot but a movie from five years ago is still going to be able to keep up with what's released today. A lot of games have a built-in expiration because gaming technology keeps moving forward while movies are pretty much static.

I'm no expert so take what I have with a grain of salt but I would think that these are pretty solid reasons.

This would be my only rational for it as well, although it would be interesting to see the figures.

That's only accounting for the initial sales. Games are still being worked on (and therefore incurring costs) long after they've been released. Server maintenance if it has multiplayer, patches, version updates, etc. All have to come from somewhere.

 

[Soopy]

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 always assumed the economics of it are thus:

1. Movies have multiple dips. They can run in the theater and make a ton of money. They then get released on DVD/Blu-Ray and make a ton more money.
2. Wider audience. While it takes movies more turns to make the same money as games, they have a MUCH wider audience. Do you know anyone that doesn't own a DVD player (probably not)? Now do you know someone who doesn't own a 360 (probably multiple people)? Grandma will buy Twilight on DVD but I doubt Grandma will be buying...whatever gaming's equivalent to Twilight is (Barbie's Horse Adventure?).
3. Timelessness. I think this one gets overlooked a lot but a movie from five years ago is still going to be able to keep up with what's released today. A lot of games have a built-in expiration because gaming technology keeps moving forward while movies are pretty much static.

I'm no expert so take what I have with a grain of salt but I would think that these are pretty solid reasons.

This would be my only rational for it as well, although it would be interesting to see the figures.

That's only accounting for the initial sales. Games are still being worked on (and therefore incurring costs) long after they've been released. Server maintenance if it has multiplayer, patches, version updates, etc. All have to come from somewhere.

That being the case, then why does a game like say, "Battleship" retail for $60USD, while a game like Skyrim sells for $60USD and then Battlefield or COD sells for $60USD.

If the on going costs of game support is where the price is set, then how can they justify charging so much money for a single player game like Skyrim?
IMO, patching broken gameplay elements shouldn't be a factor. It just shouldn't be broken to begin with.

Hosting servers, I can understand. But it still doesn't make sense in the scheme of things. Either a game like Skyrim should be cheaper or COD/Battlefield is too cheap.

 

[HarryScull]

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.

I got annoyed because I set myself a challenge to see how much I could enjoy games while spending less than £5 a game and people start arguing that the games I bought did not count, It was my challenge that I set myself with rukle I set myself people have no right to say that I did this wrong by buying games on sale, flash games or part of the humble bunble because the point of this challenge was to show that if you are smart about buying games and if you "bargin hunt" gaming is cheap not to buy brand new, retail games for cheap because that won't happen and if you insist on buying games brand new then you are letting game company's rip you off.

 

[TehCookie]

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.

I just used cars cuz it was the first thing that came to mind almost every industry is more expensive when things are new and shiny. Excuse me for using cars, I could be talking about laundry machines for all I care. The newer more high tech one is going to be more expensive than the older one. They will also go on sale. Don't complain they're expensive if you can get them for cheap but don't want to.

 

[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".

As everyone here has been pointing out, you don't HAVE to pay those prices. I could go to Kohl's right now and buy their brand new summer clothes, paying more than $40 and $50 for shirts and more than $50 and $70 for pants. Or, I could wait a while and get those at a discounted price. Or wait for some sort of sale or special to take advantage of.

Now, rather than retyping everything I've said in this thread before, I'm just going to quote myself and call it a day.

I'm pretty sure a LOT of people complain about 40-60 hour single player plus unlimited online multiplayer games being $60 at launch. I rarely see anybody around here specifying certain hours of gameplay they are willing to pay $60 for. Syndicate may have been a bit overpriced based on the single player campaign, but most people aren't complaining about games like Syndicate. It's not the number of hours they have an issue with, it's the price itself, regardless of whether it provides 5 hours of fun or infinite in multiplayer.

Again, here's the way I see it. Name brand jeans are always way beyond what reasonable people want to pay when they first hit the racks. After a few months, they get marked down a few times, and eventually end up on clearance. And then there are lots of retail sales and special deals and discounts inbetween you can use to tick off even more dollars. So you end up getting a $80 pair of jeans for $20 or $30, and all you had to do was wait and clip coupons.

Complaining about launch prices is like complaining about ANY sort of price when something first hits the market. Everything is more expensive when it first comes out. We all know that. Yet for some reason, a lot of gamers seem to think the video games market shouldn't be subject to the same phenomenon. While I would agree that games should have more of a trial period for consumers and better return policies for products we aren't satisfied with (or at least some sort of return policy for digitally purchased games), to expect games to be cheap on launch day is just silly.

Of course they cost more than they're worth on launch day, because they know the people who want it regardless of price will pay that ridiculous price. Every other market does it, it's called supply and demand. But as far as I know, every other market isn't filled with people who pay those inflated prices and then fucking whine about how it's breaking their bank and that they deserve better.

Exactly. It seems to be a lot easier for people to pass on an awesome pair of jeans for a while than it is to pass on a game for a while.

But either way, if you can't help yourself and buy that pair of jeans at its top price, you can't blame the manufacturer for the decision you made. Had you waited for a better price, you wouldn't have contributed to the manufacturer's numbers for initial sales. Which means you were subtly telling the manufacturer their product wasn't worth that price. That's another thing gamers haven't quite gotten the hang of yet--voting with your wallet, and making what you purchase reflect what you value as a consumer. They claim low prices are what they value, but when they pay $60 on launch day, they are telling the publisher what they value is getting the game ASAP no matter what the cost.

All products cost the most when they are first released because manufacturers know the people who want those products sooner rather than cheaper will pay those prices. It's a fact of marketing. For gamers to think the games industry should be impervious to the same functions of a free market is sheer arrogance on their part. If what you value as a consumer is lower prices, then wait for the lower prices. If you don't like the high prices at release, then don't pay the high prices at release. If you think the price is too high, then don't fucking pay the price. Stop telling the publisher you value getting the game sooner over getting the game cheaper. And don't sit here and try to legitimize yourself when publishers aren't answering your prayers for cheaper games, because you are telling them by adding to their sales statistics that you are perfectly fine with whatever price they offer.

You don't need that game at launch, just as I don't need that cute summer blouse when it first hits the racks. And if you do want it so badly, then spend your money better so that you can pay rent and get the game of your desire. My God. If you're having trouble deciding if you should get the game you want at launch or if you should pay your fucking rent, you need some fucking help.

Could they deal with piracy better? Yes. But that doesn't mean consumers should expect the industry as a whole to exist in a little bubble completely impervious to supply and demand, and perfectly normal and accepted market trends.

You seem to be missing the point though... the Companies making these games want your money on release. Thats why the make such a big deal about it. I agree that people have a choice, in fact I stated it, but companies do not. This is why there will be change.

If you think that the industry can support itself as it is, while its potential customers only go for 2nd hand or budget bin prices, then that would be pretty foolish. The industry is flailing about trying to keep its current practice, while also retaining its prior successes. Unfortunately they don't seem to be getting it right.

Games are expensive, when set by the industry. Depreciation from time or use is not something the Publishers count on and actively try to avoid by driving up initial sales. But the customer doesn't have to accept that price (like you said) as long as they can wait. This is what will lead the Publishers to a loss in the long run.

 

[HarryScull]

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

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.

1. I say that games are expensive on launch, so the solution on that is not to buy them on launch, wait for price drops and sales and buy then, a brand new car is ridiculously expensive but I can get a decent used car for £300, same thing applies to games

2. um yes I was arguing against the main excuse I hear for piracy which is that "games are to expensive" and arguing that the solution to games being expensive isn't to complain to game company's or to pirate it is to "bargin hunt" and buy games cheap and on sale

also trying to insult me other the internet will not work and just makes you look immature

 

[TehCookie]

No, but that 2005 econobox is going to be an absolute shitheap. I'd rather spend the premium on the nice car than drive something I'm going to hate and never be comfortable in...literally comfortable in.

I've never been in or driven an economy car that was comfortable or roomy enough for someone who's six feet tall. I doubt such a thing even exists.

Sorry about your height and/or weight problem, being normal I can fit into any car. I guess cars weren't the best analogy but I meant pretty much every other product the older one is cheaper than the newer shinier one. People need to stop complaining they can't afford games because they can't afford them new on release day when there are plenty of other ways to afford them.