games really are not that expensive...

[HarryScull]

Go to a game store and look at the price for a new release and then tell me they are not expensive.

I looked in the used games isle, yep its looking pretty damn cheap from where im standing, why would I even buy max payne for £40 when I could walk afew paces across my local game and buy fallout 3 for less than £10

the point is that buying a game new and on release date and then complaining about the price is (no offence) plain stupid when you can get great games for a very cheap price if you make some compromises (such as playing older games or waiting for sales) and shop around a bit

 

[fozzy360]

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.

Ok, I see. Well, I think, for movies is that the price we see is one that consumers are willing to pay and one the movie studios are willing to charge. In a way, it's a sort of equilibrium. Not only that, but movie studios make most of their money when the movie makes its theatrical run.

 

[tippy2k2]

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.

 

[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.

 

[fozzy360]

snip

I see your point. I just thought the argument was how much you pay for how how much you get. Goin along with what you said, I think with games, it's about about having them now and playing them now.

 

[Vault101]

I'm Australian and even though i can afford new games (and then some) i actuallly don't think they are that unaffordable, only if you feel the burning need to play on release day...

HOWEVER it seems that perhaps some of the industrys problems may be helped if they lowered prices...

also typing with one hand since my nose decided to spring a leak...

 

[Lilani]

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?

Because movies first come out in theaters and make several millions there before they hit DVD.

 

[Strain42]

I agree with the TC, gaming is a pretty cheap hobby if you just show a little self control in buying titles.

In my case, most of the games I'm interested in don't even cost $60 on launch day. The last game I spent $60+ on was almost a year ago with Catherine, and the next one for me doesn't come out until August.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with buying on launch day if it's a game you're really interested in and want to play as soon as possible, but when I see people who are gonna pick up every AAA game shown off at E3 on launch day, I have no sympathy when they say that games are too expensive. No one forced that person to buy it on launch day and over half those games will get price drops within a couple months.

Me for example, I'm really excited for Lollipop Chainsaw. I think it looks awesome, I'm a big Suda51 fan. Overall, I'm excited for the game. But I'm not going to pay $60 for it when I know that if I just wait I'll eventually see it for 20 bucks at wal-mart.

Some people do genuinely believe the cost is too high, and there's plenty of time to debate that some other time and place. From what I've seen though, most people who say "Games are too expensive" are really saying "I'm spending too much on games." and I don't feel sorry for them because it's their own fault.

 

[Lilani]

snip

I see your point. I just thought the argument was how much you pay for how how much you get. Goin along with what you said, I think with games, it's about about having them now and playing them now.

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.

 

[Soopy]

It is a fairly cheap hobby considering the alternatives. For example, I build cars as my primary hobby. My tools so far probably cost around $5000. The components to build a motor will set me back around the $3-4000 and paint and panel work is probably the better part of $1500-2000.

There simply isn't enough entertaining titles released each year to go even close cost wise.
That said, I find allot of the time game's aren't a high enough quality to warrant what they do charge. Some are just pathetic of late.

 

[fozzy360]

snip

I see your point. I just thought the argument was how much you pay for how how much you get. Goin along with what you said, I think with games, it's about about having them now and playing them now.

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.

That I can totally agree with. Petitions, forum flaming, and review bombing is all well and fun (and, in some cases, legitamte, but that's another discussion), but if you feel burned, don't buy from the dev/publisher next time.

 

[burningdragoon]

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

Calling people sheep for wanting to play a game sooner rather than later is not going help your argument.

If we have two things, Thing A at $100 and Thing B at $10, just because Thing B is cheaper doesn't mean Thing A isn't too expensive. It may be a better deal, sure, but it is because Thing A is too expensive.

And some games take a very long time to drop in price. Skyrim, a 6 month old game is still selling for near full [http://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?_dyncharset=ISO-8859-1&_dynSessConf=5448221319812021324&id=pcat17071&type=page&st=skyrim&sc=Global&cp=1&nrp=15&sp=&qp=&list=n&iht=y&usc=All+Categories&ks=960] price.

Super Mario 64 DS, an 8 year old game is still selling for $30 [http://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?_dyncharset=ISO-8859-1&_dynSessConf=5448221319812021324&id=pcat17071&type=page&st=super+mario+64+ds&sc=Global&cp=1&nrp=15&sp=&qp=&list=n&iht=y&usc=All+Categories&ks=960], only $10 cheaper than full price. That's ludicrous. $30 for an 8 year old PS3/360 game would be too expensive.

 

[Soopy]

Skyrim on XBL is still $110AUD... I don't know how that makes sense...

 

[TehCookie]

Wah I don't want to save money by waiting and taking advantage of deals. That's cheating! [footnote]Slight exaggeration. [/footnote]

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.

 

[burningdragoon]

...

Reverse Order, I choose you!


And how do you determine the proper prices for these games? Apparently not supply and demand since presumably people are still willing to pay that much for those games...

Blah blah supply and demand blah blah. Okay, now that that's out of the way, people still accepting full/near full price after that length of time are dumber than people who buy everything they want as soon as they want.

I'd say lowering the price over time would get more sales (and probably more money) than leaving it $60 because 'enough' people are still buying it, but I have literally nothing backing that up, so *shrug*

But either way the point "just wait for the price to drop" doesn't work when the price doesn't drop.



Except what you have is Thing A and Thing A at a later date. Consider it as paying for getting it faster.



Well there's Thing A, Thing A at a later date, Thing B (something inherently cheaper), Thing C (something free, flash games or something I dunno), Thing D (some other thing), and so on. Thing A Original Flavor can still be too expensive even though there are other options, which was really my only point. The specific price tag being too expensive is a matter of opinion, but cheaper options doesn't change that.

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.

 

[Supertegwyn]

I would LOVE to pay $60 for a game.

When the RRP for a game is $120 at release, half price is a bargain.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

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.

It all does because
1. I set the rules not you

You know who you sound like?

2. The point of the challenge was to show how being a smart consumer saves money and being a smart consumer means taking advantage of sales and price drops even if it is charity driven and regardless of the age of a game, the only thing I measured a game on was how fun it was and how long I enjoyed playing it for

That might have been the point of your challenge to yourself, but it's not the point of the argument that you're attempting to challenge. The argument has never been that no one can find good deals on games, hell, you don't have to look past a steam holiday sale to debunk that idea. The argument is that game prices are too expensive at launch, which forces people to wait until price drops or to buy their games used, both of which are really detrimental to both game developers and publishers.

Since publishers base the success of a game on how well it did at launch, and not how well it did over 2, 3, or 5 years, it means that some games that didn't have good launches because they aren't a well known IP won't get sequels, all because people waited for a price drop in order to see if the game is good. Developers also don't get as much money for their games because many publishers have certain clauses in their contracts regarding bonuses which stipulate that a game has to sell x amount of units at launch in order for the publisher to pay out bonuses to the developer's employees. Publishers also don't get a dime from used game sales.

All of these are problems because games cost too much at launch which forces people to look for sales, and price drops just like you did.

Good job proving the point of the argument you were trying to disprove smart guy.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

Yeah, games are cheap...if you wait a longass time or wait for them to go on sale.

It is a fairly cheap hobby considering the alternatives. For example, I build cars as my primary hobby. My tools so far probably cost around $5000. The components to build a motor will set me back around the $3-4000 and paint and panel work is probably the better part of $1500-2000.

There simply isn't enough entertaining titles released each year to go even close cost wise.
That said, I find allot of the time game's aren't a high enough quality to warrant what they do charge. Some are just pathetic of late.

I find this to be quite agreeable.

captcha: "forget you" ...Well forget you, too.

 

[SayHelloToMrBullet]

New releases in Australia are really expensive though, and take ages to have their prices lowered. It's quite ridiculous really.