Poll: How much would you as a PC gamer be willing to pay for a great single player game?

[Senor Pantz]

I am curious, as the gaming community matures and, hopefully, we all start earning more money, how much would a PC gamer (or any gamer for that matter) be willing to pay for a great single player game? If adding 5-10$ could keep a game in development for 6-12 months longer, allowing full development of story lines, features and ironing out of bugs, would you be willing to pay for it?
As there are luxury cars, watches etc.... is there a market for luxury games?

 

[the_carrot]

Development costs for some games is in the millions of dollars, how much are you planning to invest in this project? How are you going to take it further. You may write a thorough storyline that follows all the way through, but what about who that story is compelling to? Is a "luxury" game going to be elucidating on matters of human events? Who are you going to get to write this thing? John Barth? I just don't think it's as simple as money=good.

 

[Senor Pantz]

I agree with you, I am not suggesting that you simply throw large amounts of money around, just that I would rather buy 1 good game, well thought out, well designed and well tested, rather than 2 rushed games. I would also be prepared to pay more, per game, if quality could be delivered.

I was just curious if anyone else felt the same, this isn't a project, I don't have anything to do with making games, I wouldn't even know where to start, I am looking at this from a consumer point of view. Would you be able to sell less units of a higher quality product at a higher price, it is done in other industries could it be done with games?

I think piracy might be a major problem though, if the price of games went up.

 

[Nythi]

If a game is nearly perfect (like: A total new Story, a lot of new ideas, new gameplay, etc etc) and is just that what I want and always dreamed of...I would pay 65 ?

 

[Senor Pantz]

I see what you mean Kwil, mind you I have been impressed with the consistency in the HBO series'ssessess that I have seen, Rome, Six feet Under (although it did drag a little in the middle) etc.... And although they aren't perhaps what you might call luxury TV, its still a service you can pay for that provides fairly consistent quality.

I guess I am just trying to think of ways consumers can support developers while they make good games.

 

[the_carrot]

I see what you mean Kwil, mind you I have been impressed with the consistency in the HBO series'ssessess that I have seen, Rome, Six feet Under (although it did drag a little in the middle) etc.... And although they aren't perhaps what you might call luxury TV, its still a service you can pay for that provides fairly consistent quality.

I guess I am just trying to think of ways consumers can support developers while they make good games.

HBOs productions are good because they have made a lot of mistakes, and learned from them and become a pretty good little picture company. They've made good decisions for a while now. But in reality there is no guarantee. In your defense, Team Fortress 2 took many years to develop, I get the feeling it's been on the back burner for quite a while, and it became quite savory. I think if the people behind it put some care and thought and effort into it...It can be good, but I don't think a premium price tag is necessary. Would I pay more for games that are produced by purportedly reliable companies...I already do. But as Kwil says there is not an assurance of quality, and to be sure, many of them have fallen short, at least in my opinion. FEAR and Crysis leap to mind as I write that.

 

[Senor Pantz]

Yea I know what you mean about FEAR, I never understood why Monolith didn't just go that extra step and include some system shock 2 style RPG elements? Okay I'll admit I am a fpsrpg fan, I would like to see games with an involvement slider as well as a difficulty slider, the more "involved" the more rpgish it gets, inventory to manage, can only quick change to weapons in holsters not pack, clip based reload system etc...

And its true that there is no certainty in quality, I guess between publishers and developers its hard to find an entity that can last and is willing to brand themselves as quality. There are good developers like "Looking Glass", but they are often victims of their creative visions, and there are long lasting publishers but they're "victims" of their shareholders

 

[The Irrelevant Gamer]

A market for luxury games? No. Not unless you consider things like Rock Band, and Steel Battalion luxury games, but their increased cost is not due to quality, but the peripherals they come with.

There is already the "next gen tax." Console games of this generation cost sixty dollars, and for no good reason even when there is a PC release of the same game at the same time that only costs fifty.

I seem to recall at first this new price point was going to only be for AAA titles, but that went right out the window. I think the introduction of "luxury games" for a even greater cost would follow the same pattern.

Quality is also much more subjective in games than it is in cars. With cars more expensive materials, and nicer options are used for luxury. What would make a game a luxury model? A better engine? Fewer bugs? Features you like? Using a good engine, and working out bugs while including worthwhile features should be the developer's job anyway, and putting extra polish on a game doesn't justify adding cost to it, and claiming it is a luxury item.

I don't see a need for a higher price bracket of supposedly superior games, and if there was one I doubt the quality would be any higher than current AAA titles from companies who are dedicated to putting out games when they are ready like Blizzard, and Valve.

What gaming needs is more developers who aren't at the mercy of publishers who rush them, or shareholders who don't understand the industry, and I don't think a higher cost for games will accomplish that.

 

[raankh]

Fihtty dahlaz

Or 350 ks o' taters

 

[DaxStrife]

There is already the "next gen tax." Console games of this generation cost sixty dollars, and for no good reason even when there is a PC release of the same game at the same time that only costs fifty.

I thought that hefty price tag was because they were selling the actual consoles at a loss? (IE: They cost more to make than they sell them for, so profit is lost on each model sold) And now they're trying to make up for that loss with the extra $10 on the tag.

 

[Senor Pantz]

Or 350 ks o' taters

Is that T'ree fiddy kilos of taters?

 

[KaynSlamdyke]

Personally I'm willing to wait three, maybe four years for a game to slip into budget categories, or buy them as direct downloads over things like Steam. The last few games I bought for my PC when they launched were Defcon and Portal.

So I'm in the $40 +/- $5 section. Or even less than that if I can get away with it.

With consoles it's a bit different. I'm personally fine paying $60-80 (£30-£40) for a game even for my PS2. But I expect cheaper thrills from my PC nowadays. And personally, I'm leaning towards expecting the same when I move into Next Gen thanks to the Virtual Console and XBoxLive Marketplace.

Sounds wierd, but is true. I know games are getting more expensive to make, and more expensive to sell (because shop space is at a premium and retailers and distributors know this), and more "succeed (just) or go bust" than they ever were back when I got into gaming in the nineties, but my desire to actually want to pay for it is decreasing, simply because I expect better nowadays from the cheaper thrills I know I can run on my computer than from the next gen titles I need to upgrade my PC and Consoles for.

 

[Kieran210]

how much is $50 in £'s?

I think that there should be no increase in price for 'luxury' games, because then it give small developers a reason to release buggy crap. Polish should be expected, and all games should be judged by the same standard.

People should just work harder on their games, their concepts and their storylines. I'll pay more overall if the general quality of games improved, but not a luxury tax, no.

 

[fantomspower]

Prices go by the $X.99 range. So, technically it should be: 39.99, 49.99, 59.99, 69.99, 79.99. PC games seem to be steady at 49.99, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a jump to 59.99 soon. PC may be saved from the next-gen syndrome. Like others have said; if the quality is there then it will be worth the higher price tag. Personally right now I don't see the quality (generally speaking, of course).

 

[Girlysprite]

willing to pay up to 70 dollars I think. Must say I'm a pc gamer.

 

[jezcentral]

I'm in the $150+ camp, as not only is the dollar so weak it means that it's only £75 in English money, but some already cost more than that (Rock Band, anyone?)

Okay, I'm financially luckier than most, but how many of you have bought a game, and a peripheral to play it with? (I bought Lego Star Wars 2 which required a gamepad to play it on my PC comfortably with, and when I got X3 I also bought a joystick). Look how many people bought a games system just so they could play Halo 3!

And if the game is that good, I will pay for it. PC gamers constantly upgrade a part of their system with a particular game in mind, anyway (my first upgrade was an SVGA card, for Simcity 2000 ).

 

[cattypat]

How do you raise the price against young buyers, and yet keep it low enough so the publishers don't go immature on the "collector edition" values.

I think games have held a unique price point over the years that has really fascinated most buyers, getting respect from young 'uns since its not as disposable as music or dvd, and embraced by adults as affordable entertainment in hundreds of different flavours.

Over here in England, the pc-console divide is massive, almost like its on a different plane of exsistance. New pc games quickly drop to around £23 (46 dollers or so) whilst console games can hang around at £40($80) forever.

As a result I have completly given up console games, even if the release quality of pc games may be lower, I'll most likely still get a quality gaming experiance, with more online whistles attatched.

Then again there are those games that could be priced anywhere and would still have their obsessive buyers from rich creatists (flight simulator and tycoon box sets I'm looking at you).

 

[Senor Pantz]

Well to be honest, I would quite like to see a few games priced out of the range of kids.

Anyone here think Fallout 3 is going to have all the mature elements of fallout 1 and 2? Of course not, partly because they will be aiming for a teen/mature rating, trying to avoid the 18+/AO rating and the reduced market share that follows.

If pricing helps reduce the cost of maturity on a developer then, sure I'd pay more.

 

[Count_de_Monet]

If I knew a game was good and felt I could actually trust reviewers and ads I would probably pay up to $80 for a game. Unfortunately over the years I've been burned so many times that I usually wait for the first reaction from people and generally just say "Well...it doesn't sound that good I'd rather just play more CS" or something like that.

Recently I have even found myself unable to trust the Required/Recommended hardware setup on games because I've bought a few games which should have been well within my capabilities and found them practically unplayable. It seems like companies set the "minimum" requirements at whatever it takes to get to the main menu not play in lowest graphics without any lag...

To be perfectly honest the best option out there seems to be pirating a game to see if you can even run it then buying the game if it does. I think 90% of the time I would choose to buy it even if I had pirated it because the main attraction for any game with me is multiplayer, I hate buying a game and beating the campaign then being left with a $50 coaster.