PC Games are cheaper because there are less people playing them and they don't want to lose the market by alienating what is left with high prices. See, one of the reasons why console games are taking off is because of all the problems with getting games to run on a PC. PC games require all kinds of hardware to run right, and everyone's system winds up being a bit differant depending on the pieces, software, and of course how well updated the drivers are kept (which can vary greatly because updating drivers can be a painful process in a lot of cases, with the new drivers for whatever reason not working well with your system or established software).
Console games are made with established hardware in mind, with all the systems running exactly the same. While the power of such systems is weak compared to PCs, there is also no tinkering, or needs to go running out to spend hundreds of dollars to upgrade a system to run the newest game.
Like right now I have a PC I bought last year (with some help), it's running a Phenom 9600 Quad-Core processor and a Nvidia 8800GT graphics card. Right now my system is rated by many as "cheapo" and I have some questions as to whether or not I will be able to run Dragon Age come the end of the year (Disabled, and not a lot of money for upgrades). As it is I have some minor problems with Fallout 3 (but it generally runs just fine, I get some wierd graphic flickering at the upper right of the screen once in a while, and for some idiotic reason it doesn't like to run custom radio station mods).
Consider though that with this system I'm already wondering if I can play the newest coming games, while with older consoles there is no such worry. If it says "360" or "PS-3" any PS-3 or 360 will run the game fine. What's more those consoles are substantially cheaper when new.
At any rate this kind of thing doubtlessly contributes to why PC games are cheaper, they are competing with the consoles. Like it or not while PCs can achieve better quality in theory in general the PC is an inferior gaming platform. Console developers learn to make that limited hardware really sing and produce some amazing results, especially towards the end of the life of a console. PC developers always seem to run for the bleeding edge, and then rely on gamers to upgrade their systems, or use varied hardware as a cop out to make their stuff run properly (ie, if you have problems contact your hardware manufacturer, or update your drivers and resolve any appropriate conflicts because heck, we didn't bother to test this on many differant system configurations).
At any rate after all this I will generally say games are so expensive because the industry is greedy, and is out to gouge gamers for as much as we can possibly pay. They engage in price fixing (as I mentioned in other threads) to keep prices as high as the market can stand. AAA titles and ones with fairly low budgets (comparitively speaking) tend to go for the same price when first released. By setting prices (which is illegal at least in the US) nobody competes with each other to undercut the competition which is what is supposed to be happening.
Perhaps prices won't go as low as Brazil (referancing the article here) but if the industry competed as intended they would be a LOT lower.
I mean I'm all for capitolism, but the thing is that in the US Capitolism was intended to be balanced by rules to prevent monopolies, force competition, and prevent price fixing by coordinates groups of merchants/producers that should be competing.
Nobody cares about the game industry (yet) which is why they get away with it, you however saw these issues in action over gas prices (still ongoing), and of course the whole drama about Microsoft and whether it's effectively running a monopoly on operating systems (which it is, but American law is anything but straightforward especially when a lot of money is involved).
>>>----Therumancer--->
Console games are made with established hardware in mind, with all the systems running exactly the same. While the power of such systems is weak compared to PCs, there is also no tinkering, or needs to go running out to spend hundreds of dollars to upgrade a system to run the newest game.
Like right now I have a PC I bought last year (with some help), it's running a Phenom 9600 Quad-Core processor and a Nvidia 8800GT graphics card. Right now my system is rated by many as "cheapo" and I have some questions as to whether or not I will be able to run Dragon Age come the end of the year (Disabled, and not a lot of money for upgrades). As it is I have some minor problems with Fallout 3 (but it generally runs just fine, I get some wierd graphic flickering at the upper right of the screen once in a while, and for some idiotic reason it doesn't like to run custom radio station mods).
Consider though that with this system I'm already wondering if I can play the newest coming games, while with older consoles there is no such worry. If it says "360" or "PS-3" any PS-3 or 360 will run the game fine. What's more those consoles are substantially cheaper when new.
At any rate this kind of thing doubtlessly contributes to why PC games are cheaper, they are competing with the consoles. Like it or not while PCs can achieve better quality in theory in general the PC is an inferior gaming platform. Console developers learn to make that limited hardware really sing and produce some amazing results, especially towards the end of the life of a console. PC developers always seem to run for the bleeding edge, and then rely on gamers to upgrade their systems, or use varied hardware as a cop out to make their stuff run properly (ie, if you have problems contact your hardware manufacturer, or update your drivers and resolve any appropriate conflicts because heck, we didn't bother to test this on many differant system configurations).
At any rate after all this I will generally say games are so expensive because the industry is greedy, and is out to gouge gamers for as much as we can possibly pay. They engage in price fixing (as I mentioned in other threads) to keep prices as high as the market can stand. AAA titles and ones with fairly low budgets (comparitively speaking) tend to go for the same price when first released. By setting prices (which is illegal at least in the US) nobody competes with each other to undercut the competition which is what is supposed to be happening.
Perhaps prices won't go as low as Brazil (referancing the article here) but if the industry competed as intended they would be a LOT lower.
I mean I'm all for capitolism, but the thing is that in the US Capitolism was intended to be balanced by rules to prevent monopolies, force competition, and prevent price fixing by coordinates groups of merchants/producers that should be competing.
Nobody cares about the game industry (yet) which is why they get away with it, you however saw these issues in action over gas prices (still ongoing), and of course the whole drama about Microsoft and whether it's effectively running a monopoly on operating systems (which it is, but American law is anything but straightforward especially when a lot of money is involved).
>>>----Therumancer--->
