the argument is flawed because you are assuming everyone that owns an xbox.ps3/wii will buy the certain game you are thinking about, in all reality most people will not bother if its outside their genre spectrum. for example, u could offer me call of duty for free and i would still say no simply because its an FPS and i dont like FPS games.theultimateend said:So I was thinking in another thread. When developers make games and charge 60 dollars and folks try to justify the cost of the game to help recoup cost of development. It got me thinking (as the beginning of this post might have already pointed out...) do they really need to charge 60 dollars?
According to nexgenwars.com there are tens of millions of each console sold, the specific numbers as of the posting of this are below:
360 32,193,652
PS3 24,772,300
Wii 53,268,494
Now imagine if you will if someone made a game and only charged two dollars per copy (perhaps requiring it be digital but lets just say hard copy). That means that if every person who owned a certain console bought it they would make the following amounts:
360 32,193,652*2= $64,387,304
PS3 24,772,300*2= $49,544,600
Wii 53,268,494*2= $106,536,988
Now from my quick google the most expensive game ever made was supposedly 100 million dollars. However the average cost to make a next gen top tier game is roughly 60 million.
Now I realize that by that account the PS3 would not be able to recoup costs and the 360 would be pretty close. But this is JUST 2 dollars. You bring it up to 3 or 4 dollars and all companies are making a profit and still staying at a low enough cost that there is almost no danger in the purchase.
So yes, before anyone attacks this, I realize that 2 dollars is likely a bit on the extreme. But the study here is to see if folks would be more likely (even regardless of quality, considering 60-100 mil is for really top of market games) to buy something without fear if it was this inexpensive.
It is also in hopes of dismissing the idea that if a company doesn't charge 60 dollars per copy that they'll never recoup costs.
Really? Even on the PS3 that would end up being a possible 1,486,338,000 dollars in profit. Now I'm not a rocket scientist but I'm pretty sure that nobody has come near to spending 1.4 billion dollars on a game (that isn't constantly maintained and even then I don't think wow is near this kind of cost yet).
The less you charge for a product the more people will buy it. In the past companies (long before video games) made some pretty sexy profits by selling in bulk, now it seems the new strategy is to sell less at a higher price. While this might be more friendly on physical resources it certainly isn't consumer friendly.
You make a good point. My argument IS flawed. I like your sampling size of one person. That is far more accurate than anything I could have ever thought up.vampirekid.13 said:the argument is flawed because you are assuming everyone that owns an xbox.ps3/wii will buy the certain game you are thinking about, in all reality most people will not bother if its outside their genre spectrum. for example, u could offer me call of duty for free and i would still say no simply because its an FPS and i dont like FPS games.theultimateend said:So I was thinking in another thread. When developers make games and charge 60 dollars and folks try to justify the cost of the game to help recoup cost of development. It got me thinking (as the beginning of this post might have already pointed out...) do they really need to charge 60 dollars?
According to nexgenwars.com there are tens of millions of each console sold, the specific numbers as of the posting of this are below:
360 32,193,652
PS3 24,772,300
Wii 53,268,494
Now imagine if you will if someone made a game and only charged two dollars per copy (perhaps requiring it be digital but lets just say hard copy). That means that if every person who owned a certain console bought it they would make the following amounts:
360 32,193,652*2= $64,387,304
PS3 24,772,300*2= $49,544,600
Wii 53,268,494*2= $106,536,988
Now from my quick google the most expensive game ever made was supposedly 100 million dollars. However the average cost to make a next gen top tier game is roughly 60 million.
Now I realize that by that account the PS3 would not be able to recoup costs and the 360 would be pretty close. But this is JUST 2 dollars. You bring it up to 3 or 4 dollars and all companies are making a profit and still staying at a low enough cost that there is almost no danger in the purchase.
So yes, before anyone attacks this, I realize that 2 dollars is likely a bit on the extreme. But the study here is to see if folks would be more likely (even regardless of quality, considering 60-100 mil is for really top of market games) to buy something without fear if it was this inexpensive.
It is also in hopes of dismissing the idea that if a company doesn't charge 60 dollars per copy that they'll never recoup costs.
Really? Even on the PS3 that would end up being a possible 1,486,338,000 dollars in profit. Now I'm not a rocket scientist but I'm pretty sure that nobody has come near to spending 1.4 billion dollars on a game (that isn't constantly maintained and even then I don't think wow is near this kind of cost yet).
The less you charge for a product the more people will buy it. In the past companies (long before video games) made some pretty sexy profits by selling in bulk, now it seems the new strategy is to sell less at a higher price. While this might be more friendly on physical resources it certainly isn't consumer friendly
.
1 person is all thats needed to debunk that argument, since you assumed everyone would buy the game. i woudlnt buy it. therefore the argument right there is wrong, if you think im the only one that wouldnt buy a 1 dollar game thats out of their spectrum you are probably wrong, most likely. sure its not like im saying 80% of the people wont buy it. im saying NOT EVERYONE will buy it, you said EVERYONE will buy it. which is wrong.theultimateend said:You make a good point. My argument IS flawed. I like your sampling size of one person. That is far more accurate than anything I could have ever thought up.vampirekid.13 said:the argument is flawed because you are assuming everyone that owns an xbox.ps3/wii will buy the certain game you are thinking about, in all reality most people will not bother if its outside their genre spectrum. for example, u could offer me call of duty for free and i would still say no simply because its an FPS and i dont like FPS games.theultimateend said:So I was thinking in another thread. When developers make games and charge 60 dollars and folks try to justify the cost of the game to help recoup cost of development. It got me thinking (as the beginning of this post might have already pointed out...) do they really need to charge 60 dollars?
According to nexgenwars.com there are tens of millions of each console sold, the specific numbers as of the posting of this are below:
360 32,193,652
PS3 24,772,300
Wii 53,268,494
Now imagine if you will if someone made a game and only charged two dollars per copy (perhaps requiring it be digital but lets just say hard copy). That means that if every person who owned a certain console bought it they would make the following amounts:
360 32,193,652*2= $64,387,304
PS3 24,772,300*2= $49,544,600
Wii 53,268,494*2= $106,536,988
Now from my quick google the most expensive game ever made was supposedly 100 million dollars. However the average cost to make a next gen top tier game is roughly 60 million.
Now I realize that by that account the PS3 would not be able to recoup costs and the 360 would be pretty close. But this is JUST 2 dollars. You bring it up to 3 or 4 dollars and all companies are making a profit and still staying at a low enough cost that there is almost no danger in the purchase.
So yes, before anyone attacks this, I realize that 2 dollars is likely a bit on the extreme. But the study here is to see if folks would be more likely (even regardless of quality, considering 60-100 mil is for really top of market games) to buy something without fear if it was this inexpensive.
It is also in hopes of dismissing the idea that if a company doesn't charge 60 dollars per copy that they'll never recoup costs.
Really? Even on the PS3 that would end up being a possible 1,486,338,000 dollars in profit. Now I'm not a rocket scientist but I'm pretty sure that nobody has come near to spending 1.4 billion dollars on a game (that isn't constantly maintained and even then I don't think wow is near this kind of cost yet).
The less you charge for a product the more people will buy it. In the past companies (long before video games) made some pretty sexy profits by selling in bulk, now it seems the new strategy is to sell less at a higher price. While this might be more friendly on physical resources it certainly isn't consumer friendly
Just like I don't like Olives which means that most people in the world don't like Olives. Sure in reality it is one of the highest output options at Subway. But what the hell do I care? It doesn't match my perception of the world so it obviously must not be the case.
Kudos there tiger
Lord knows I wasn't talking about the "Maximum Possible Growth" and making the point that historically anytime an item is a low price more people are apt to buy it regardless of a desire for it.
It's almost like that is the entire driving force behind micro payments and mini transactions that add up to tens of billions of dollars a year in dime to dollar sized purchases.
*Swings his fist* Damn you reality!
