So the OP is saying that games aren't expensive if you wait for sales or until the game is so old it couldn't be sold for more than a pittance? How do you not see the bullshit logic there. People complain about the price of NEW games.
games really are not that expensive...
- Thread starter HarryScull
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Used games been given more shelf space than new has more to do with how retailer agressivly market these games than anything. That said Uncharted is the ying to my niche example. Plus imo there is a difference between £40 RRP that depreciates in price over time with a tail and the game been sold at £20 at launch where the publishing, retail and distro costs to be deducted before the devs get a cut.Treblaine said:
While some of the most popular games like Ninty 1st party games tend to keep their value the same cant be said for 95% of the games released, most bomb in price quickly. FYI if youre UK / PAL you can get uncharted for £25 off the intenet rather than pay more from a brick and mortar shop.
Do agree with you on MS milking XBLA, its a rippoff. the main reason I buy gold (I bought 4 months for 11 quid from the internet) is because I buy alot of XBLA games on the gold only weekly sales so i'm actually saving money that way. Most of the niche and oldshool games I like have no-one playing them since most ppl who I would play with cant justify gold just for dead servers. So its a catch 22 situation which MS doesnt care because they gain so much money from CoD players
I've made this clear and you have been told this, the market means the PEOPLE WHO BUY the games. This is not about a minority of retail-shop owners making mad profits while the people who actually MAKE the game and the people who PAY for and PLAY the games get shafted.Baldr said:
"the game been sold at £20 at launch where the publishing, retail and distro costs to be deducted before the devs get a cut."TrevHead said:
On steam there are insignificant Distribution cost, insignificant retail-costs, and publisher takes a small percentage cut not a flat fee. In other words, if a game sells for £20 on steam, the developer gets £15 per copy (there is also tax as well but that's for everyone). If it is not an independent title and a publisher-developer relationship then the publisher gets ALL the money. The way publisher-developer game production works is the publisher BUYS the dev studio and employs them with a salary and they make a game that the PUBLISHER entirely owns the game and get every penny of profit. Bonuses are then negotiated after that.
The Bungie-Activision relationship is rare in this industry, Bungie is mostly independent, and the publisher is commissioned to distribute it, effectively.
Yeah, a lot bomb in price but that's with sturgeon's law ("90% of everything is crud") THE CRUD GAMES CRASH IN PRICE. The games you actually want to buy, not some movie adaptation or rushed CoD clone, they retain their price. Mass Effect 3 is offset by how it has had EXTREMELY bad press and is FULL of hidden costs with DLC.
I don't even buy XBLA games any more, most of the good ones come to PC in good time and I can play them on my laptop or in net cafe.
It's fairly simple, if everyone waited when COD MW4 came out at $60 (or 70 maybe), just left it to sit on the shelf for 2 months, they'd then pick it up for $40ish.
A few massive releases like this and the publishers and retailers would realise that we're not paying £60 a game. If we could combine this with higher sales to counteract the price cut, they'd not even have a reason to *****
Of course, it'll never happen, because the majority of gamers will pay the $60 because they feel they NEED games on the release date.
Personally I'll pick up 2 or 3 'full price' games in a year, once they've dropped to a reasonable price, but I'll often end up buying maybe 20 indie or Steam sale games in a year.
Sure there's often a few 'must have' games in a year, but there's also SO many that do not warrant camping outside the store at midnight and paying $100 for a collector's edition.
If it's not guaranteed AAA quality, keep playing what you have and give it a couple of months, 2 games at $60 or 3 at $40, just for a little patience.
A few massive releases like this and the publishers and retailers would realise that we're not paying £60 a game. If we could combine this with higher sales to counteract the price cut, they'd not even have a reason to *****
Of course, it'll never happen, because the majority of gamers will pay the $60 because they feel they NEED games on the release date.
Personally I'll pick up 2 or 3 'full price' games in a year, once they've dropped to a reasonable price, but I'll often end up buying maybe 20 indie or Steam sale games in a year.
Sure there's often a few 'must have' games in a year, but there's also SO many that do not warrant camping outside the store at midnight and paying $100 for a collector's edition.
If it's not guaranteed AAA quality, keep playing what you have and give it a couple of months, 2 games at $60 or 3 at $40, just for a little patience.
Publishers have realised that consumers don't buy new games -- at least not as often as they'd like. Their solution is demonizing the practice of buying and selling used games in addition to pursuing legal action. They don't "get it" and never will. In the information age you don't even need publishers. Once developers realize this and the business model restructures itself, prices will drop. But that won't happen until a lot of people are out of work.
Also we have to leave used games out of the discussion trying to say gaming isn't expensive. I can buy an NES and 20 games for under $50, but I think we can all agree this discussion ought to be centered around new releases.
I also love the crowd who thinks it's absurd for consumers to demand a higher quality or cheaper product. Game companies don't do me a favor by making games; I do them a favor by buying them. If they refuse to set a reasonable price, I spend my money on something else. That's not entitlement, it's simple economics.
Also we have to leave used games out of the discussion trying to say gaming isn't expensive. I can buy an NES and 20 games for under $50, but I think we can all agree this discussion ought to be centered around new releases.
I also love the crowd who thinks it's absurd for consumers to demand a higher quality or cheaper product. Game companies don't do me a favor by making games; I do them a favor by buying them. If they refuse to set a reasonable price, I spend my money on something else. That's not entitlement, it's simple economics.
Retailers make very low profits on games, movies, and music. They make the largest profits off peripherals like those gold-plated monster cables.rob_simple said:
That is why retailers like used games, too. Unlike new games which have a price set by the publisher and yield low profits, used games can be set at market value and can yield over 100% profit. Conversely, they are more risky because they are older, so they may not sell at all. Without used games, dedicated game outlets like Gamestop would go out of business -- new games wouldn't generate enough money to keep them in business.
That still doesn't explain why games are the only medium where prices don't drop consistently over time. Films all come down in price at a similar rate; same with CDS, and neither of them are even half as expensive initially as video games are. Games are the only product stores will continue to charge full retail price for years after initial release, just because they know it's likely to still sell for that.spekkio9 said:
Don't even get me started on how shady the used games system is in stores; knocking just enough money off in comparison to the first hand price to coax people into buying used. Aside from the loss of employment, I would not mourn the passing of over-priced, exploitative stores like Gamestop and Game. It's funny how they managed to stay in business for years before they started pushing used games over new as the hobby became more popular.
Prices to SOME games don't drop because the market value for them is still high. Gamestop isn't trying to exploit you, they're providing you a good at a price they think will earn them the highest profit. If you don't like their pricing, purchase the game elsewhete or not at all. I don't know why a company offering an alernative to paying $60 for every new game makes you so angry. Perhaps you don't fully understand that consumers win from it?
Movies are originally released in theaters where people pay $12 a ticket to watch it a single time. You can't compare video games to home movies without considering that aspect.
Movies are originally released in theaters where people pay $12 a ticket to watch it a single time. You can't compare video games to home movies without considering that aspect.
Games are expensive. They are also a luxury. If you can't afford a day 1 release, wait a while (in cases other than AUS where the market is fucked) the prices will drop and you can play them. 60$ is a lot of money, especially when 99% of people in my country are feeling the effects of the recession. I pick a couple of games all year to buy at day 1 and the rest get picked up when they go on sale. The few I get at day 1 usually have infinite multiplayer content or hours and hours of story that can be replayed. They keep me busy til others go on sale. It's all in how you play the market.
You can't pass off something subjective as fact. That's just poor logic.
You can't pass off something subjective as fact. That's just poor logic.
You know, there are some valid points on both sides of this little argument. However, there seems to be one thing many, especially the OP, seem to be forgetting.
And that is multi-player games.
Now I know some of you are thinking, "Pff. I don't give a rats ass about multi-player games." And that's fine. However, there are plenty of people who DO care. (and no, they are not stupid, wrong, or "sheep" for liking those games)
When it comes to many multi-player games, the key to getting the most enjoyment out of them is to be playing the game when it is new, fresh, and has the widest audience of players playing it. The best way to achieve this is to buy the game new. Perhaps not launch day, but still early on.
If you wait a year or two or three to buy the game, you'll most likely be faced with either a dwindled, virtually non-existent player base and/or a remaining player base that is so knowledgeable of the game that you may as well not even try to learn nor play the game. (as you're WAY behind the curve)
As such, for people who are looking for those kinds of games, they have every right to complain about how expensive gaming is. For them, it actually is. Despite what some of you will likely say, it's NOT their fault either. It's an industry problem.
As for me, being that I enjoy both single and multi-player experiences, there are plenty of times where my gaming hobby/past-time is far more expensive then it need be.
So OP, just because you bought a few older games on sale from discount retailers it does NOT mean gaming isn't expensive.
And that is multi-player games.
Now I know some of you are thinking, "Pff. I don't give a rats ass about multi-player games." And that's fine. However, there are plenty of people who DO care. (and no, they are not stupid, wrong, or "sheep" for liking those games)
When it comes to many multi-player games, the key to getting the most enjoyment out of them is to be playing the game when it is new, fresh, and has the widest audience of players playing it. The best way to achieve this is to buy the game new. Perhaps not launch day, but still early on.
If you wait a year or two or three to buy the game, you'll most likely be faced with either a dwindled, virtually non-existent player base and/or a remaining player base that is so knowledgeable of the game that you may as well not even try to learn nor play the game. (as you're WAY behind the curve)
As such, for people who are looking for those kinds of games, they have every right to complain about how expensive gaming is. For them, it actually is. Despite what some of you will likely say, it's NOT their fault either. It's an industry problem.
As for me, being that I enjoy both single and multi-player experiences, there are plenty of times where my gaming hobby/past-time is far more expensive then it need be.
So OP, just because you bought a few older games on sale from discount retailers it does NOT mean gaming isn't expensive.
My problem is that I don't have a lot of money to begin with. Hell when a game that's 59.99 goes on sale for 19.99 I still can't buy it. Hell, sometimes I can't even buy 14.99 or 9.99. But that's US currency. For other people it may be cheap. Let me clarify that I do not live in a refrigerator box or run down house/meth lab. I live in a normal house but I don't get a lot of disposable income
A big one to add to that:tippy2k2 said:
4. You can easily watch a movie each evening, or even two or maybe even three. Games typically take a week or two to get through. Since movie fans can watch lots movies, a movie is likely to be watched by lots of people. Gamers can only play a few games, so a game is only going to be played by small proportion of gamers.
So even when there are as many gamers as movie watchers, movies can still sell far more copies.
Then by that logic, I have no right to say a mansion located on a private island in the Caribbean is "expensive" to purchase.Buretsu said:
No, I'm sorry but when someone can't afford something, it means that something is expensive. (to them) It doesn't matter if they do or don't buy it, they can still speak on the unnecessarily high price of it.
I think you may've inadvertently argued that games ARE, in fact, too expensive. As some others have stated, people aren't angry that games cost too much at all times, they're angry at the $60 MSRP. You bought nothing except indie bundles, really old games, and slightly older games on sale. And no one's arguing that indie games are too expensive, yet you bought a ton of those. I gladly pay $15 for indie games, as I'm directly supporting the people who made the terrific game (assuming it is terrific,) and it's a fair price point for the amount of actual game I'm getting.HarryScull said:
ANYONE can play good games if they buy them 5 - 8 years after release. That doesn't mean that the $60 price point is acceptable. Additionally, developers and publishers are both pushing the online aspects of games now; pretty much every game has to have online multiplayer. So if you buy a game 6 years after release, the online component probably won't work, either due to the servers having been shut down, or a lack of players. So if you wait too long to buy a game, you're gonna miss out on the online component. And while you might not care for online play, some people quite enjoy it.
There's also the pre-order incentives. Some of these are just silly, useless items like say, weapon skins, but in other cases, they're extra maps, entirely new weapons, or FREE DLC. So if you don't pre-order it (at the ridiculous price) you may never get to play those maps, or get to use those weapons, and you'll have to pay for the DLC. And because you'll have to pay for the DLC, they've basically found a way to charge you $70 for a game without you knowing. Granted, you don't have to buy the DLC.
Games are too expensive. Yes, if you buy all your games a year after release, you can get some good deals. This is true for everything with a price tag. This does not mean that charging $60 at release is a fair price.
As for whether video games' absurd prices warrant piracy, I'm not even going to touch that one.
Piracy only hurts everyone. Many pirates use the price to justify their actions, but it sends the wrong message. It tells game companies that their product is so in demand that people are willing to steal it. It simultaneously reinforces the current business model and galvanizes companies to pursue actions that raise the cost of games -- copy protection, online multiplayer with registration, and legal action.
The only way to send the right message is to abstain altogether. In other words, an old fashioned boycottOnly when games fail and the industry can't scapegoat piracy or used games will it look inward and change.
The only way to send the right message is to abstain altogether. In other words, an old fashioned boycottOnly when games fail and the industry can't scapegoat piracy or used games will it look inward and change.
I agree.Lilani said:
I try to shop smart for everything, games included. I'm not a graphics-junkie (I don't mind even early PS1/N64 style 3D) and I have no problem with being "behind the times" as some gamers would call it, so I miss nothing by waiting until the price is reasonable. There are a few games/series that I buy new and gladly drop the $60 because I refuse to wait to play it, but most games I am more than content to wait months or even years after release to play.
