The Price of Games is TOO DAMN HIGH
- Thread starter Zetona
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes, price drops like Mass Effect 3 dropping so quickly is showing the market working properly. The demand went down (the reason doesn't matter) and the price fell so retailers could thin out their stock.TheKasp said:
I do think though that $60 is too much, for me.
not much if you are buying 5 million copies.RJ 17 said:Please tell me the title of your topic was inspired by that guy who ran for office under the "The Rent Is Too Damn High!" party.
Anyways, this kinda ties into the whole war against used games argument of "Well developers hate used games because it cuts into their profits!" Now I'm not claiming to be a fiscal analyst (I'm a frickin' English major for god's sake) but I highly doubt Amazon would be selling products at cost or at a loss. I'd imagine they're making some profit with each sale. This makes me wonder what the cost vs profit model actually is for a single copy of a game. How much does it cost to put the game on the disc put the disc in the box with a manual and a bunch of other crap. Obviously it has to cost less than $60 per game or no one would be making any money. So I really do wonder how much on average a game company makes per copy sold of their game...because I'm guessing they could lower the prices a bit and still be doing fine.
"Not much" as in "It doesn't cost much to make 5 million copies" or as in "They don't make much by just selling 5 million copies"?boag said:not much if you are buying 5 million copies.RJ 17 said:
Anyways, this kinda ties into the whole war against used games argument of "Well developers hate used games because it cuts into their profits!" Now I'm not claiming to be a fiscal analyst (I'm a frickin' English major for god's sake) but I highly doubt Amazon would be selling products at cost or at a loss. I'd imagine they're making some profit with each sale. This makes me wonder what the cost vs profit model actually is for a single copy of a game. How much does it cost to put the game on the disc put the disc in the box with a manual and a bunch of other crap. Obviously it has to cost less than $60 per game or no one would be making any money. So I really do wonder how much on average a game company makes per copy sold of their game...because I'm guessing they could lower the prices a bit and still be doing fine.
it doesnt cost them that much for each individual title, if they buy them in bulk.RJ 17 said:"Not much" as in "It doesn't cost much to make 5 million copies" or as in "They don't make much by just selling 5 million copies"?boag said:not much if you are buying 5 million copies.RJ 17 said:
Anyways, this kinda ties into the whole war against used games argument of "Well developers hate used games because it cuts into their profits!" Now I'm not claiming to be a fiscal analyst (I'm a frickin' English major for god's sake) but I highly doubt Amazon would be selling products at cost or at a loss. I'd imagine they're making some profit with each sale. This makes me wonder what the cost vs profit model actually is for a single copy of a game. How much does it cost to put the game on the disc put the disc in the box with a manual and a bunch of other crap. Obviously it has to cost less than $60 per game or no one would be making any money. So I really do wonder how much on average a game company makes per copy sold of their game...because I'm guessing they could lower the prices a bit and still be doing fine.
Hell im pretty certain their cutoff price is around 15-20 dollars for each game, if they bought 5 million.
Pfft, come back when you don't have a purchase over 10 dollars.Aircross said:
OR MAYBE I'M NOT!
Yeah, but being apart of the PC gaming master race at least proves you have patience if you build your rig and wait for sales.
I've heard this argument before, and I really don't like it. It assumes that you will enjoy one hour of playing games as much as one hour of reading a book or watching a movie, or that an hour of one game is equal to an hour of another. Obviously, if you buy a game for $60 and play it for 500 hours, that's a great investment, but the amount of time you play still suggests that you place a great amount of value on that game. For instance, if you buy a game for $6 and it takes you 60 hours to beat, do you value one hour of play at $1. Would you pay $1 for the privilege of playing the game an hour? (I accept that this view applies more to some games than others) The point is that if you for some reason put 100 hours into a $60 game you hate, you would value your time and money more than your ability to play the game. If you hate a game that takes a long time to beat and quit after 5 hours, then you're paying more per hour, and if you reread a book 10 times or listen to a CD 50 times, you're paying very little an hour, but your enjoyment of the product is not due to the cost per hour, but instead that cost per hour is a byproduct of enjoyment.Baldr said:
Long story short, cost per hour assumes long playing time, and playing time is a byproduct of the game's value to a particular player. A game should be valued relative to the enjoyment you would get from spending the same money on other products. The only way playing time should come into the equation is if the simple act of filling time is especially valuable to you. With this view, there are very few game that I feel are worth the full $60 dollars
There's an actual point here. *rants on*
The last game I ever paid a full retail price for when the game wasn't on sale at all was GTA: San Andreas on PS2. And a lot of that was because I played GTA 2, GTA 3, & Vice City so much that a new GTA game was an awesome proposition. And that game kept me playing until my PS2 decided to go out on me (mainly because I never turned it off and kept playing the minute I got home). $50 got me a game I was playing until my system went out.
$60 these days gets you a game that relies on a multiplayer aspect that might be dead as fuck after a few months, with very little else outside of multiplayer to keep someone coming back to play with some DLC to maybe keep a player base around for a little after. The highest I've ever paid for a next-gen game was $40 for DE:HR when the price dropped and I've been coming back to that one, along with some other games, despite not having bought the DLC.
*rants off*
But onto the main argument: it's no surprise when new shit drops and the old shit becomes cheaper, or prices drop as time goes on. The problem is when it drops so quickly, it really hints at the problem of making games that stay in my collection and don't end up sold to someone dumber than me. But it also shows that the market's doing something right; cats ain't buying shit, so the market drops the price and hopes new buyers might be interested here.
Besides, these days, there is almost nothing worth dropping on full price consistently.
The last game I ever paid a full retail price for when the game wasn't on sale at all was GTA: San Andreas on PS2. And a lot of that was because I played GTA 2, GTA 3, & Vice City so much that a new GTA game was an awesome proposition. And that game kept me playing until my PS2 decided to go out on me (mainly because I never turned it off and kept playing the minute I got home). $50 got me a game I was playing until my system went out.
$60 these days gets you a game that relies on a multiplayer aspect that might be dead as fuck after a few months, with very little else outside of multiplayer to keep someone coming back to play with some DLC to maybe keep a player base around for a little after. The highest I've ever paid for a next-gen game was $40 for DE:HR when the price dropped and I've been coming back to that one, along with some other games, despite not having bought the DLC.
*rants off*
But onto the main argument: it's no surprise when new shit drops and the old shit becomes cheaper, or prices drop as time goes on. The problem is when it drops so quickly, it really hints at the problem of making games that stay in my collection and don't end up sold to someone dumber than me. But it also shows that the market's doing something right; cats ain't buying shit, so the market drops the price and hopes new buyers might be interested here.
Besides, these days, there is almost nothing worth dropping on full price consistently.
That's nice. That's the sort of thing I like to see. I'm actually thinking more along the lines of like...a year from now when it'll be like a $40 price drop loltargren said:
But yeah, that's actually not a bad price at all. Thanks for letting me know about this.
I believe at one pointed it was stated at less than 15 dollars, after the game hits its point where it surpasses the cost to develope the actual cost to make the cd's and manuals is around 5RJ 17 said:
Anyways, this kinda ties into the whole war against used games argument of "Well developers hate used games because it cuts into their profits!" Now I'm not claiming to be a fiscal analyst (I'm a frickin' English major for god's sake) but I highly doubt Amazon would be selling products at cost or at a loss. I'd imagine they're making some profit with each sale. This makes me wonder what the cost vs profit model actually is for a single copy of a game. How much does it cost to put the game on the disc put the disc in the box with a manual and a bunch of other crap. Obviously it has to cost less than $60 per game or no one would be making any money. So I really do wonder how much on average a game company makes per copy sold of their game...because I'm guessing they could lower the prices a bit and still be doing fine.
Netflix is still a rental system. Compared to a streaming service like OnLive where I got an email today to join their 200 game selection service for $2 this month and $10/month afterwards. I still think OnLive still a little overpriced to begin with.SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
Whether it's too damn high or not isn't my main problem, my main problem is that it's too damn arbitrary. Why do PC AAA titles cost 60 bucks? Because PC AAA titles cost 60 bucks. I haven't yet seen one elaboration on why that price is "right", all I get when I ask is "It is because it is." I mean, I'm not sure I'd say they're all worth the same. Or that they're necessarily worth 60 bucks at all.
*Keeps an eye on indie market*
*Keeps an eye on indie market*
Right... I think this should be made a sin. Comparing the game market to the movie market IS NOT FAIR!Zetona said:
Tell me, where do game developers make their money? Mostly off of selling their games from digital or retail outlets. Maybe a little bit of advertisement from other products but this isn't particularly prevalent.
Movies? Cinema. DVD release. TV slots. Digital downloads. LEGAL streaming services. etc etc.
Also note, despite the rising consumer base, games still have a substantially smaller market then Film.
Of course this is not to say there is an issue with game pricing. There is, oh BOY there is. But a comparison to the film industry offers nothing and skews the problem with misinformation.