The Price of Games is TOO DAMN HIGH

[FoolKiller]

No. No, the price is not too high. No one forces you to buy the DLC, 60$ is less than games costed on NES and you don't have to resort to big titles only. My best gaming expiriences of the last years came for a big part from <20? titles.

NES games were $50 and there was no DLC. Now maybe you do math differently than I do but I do believe that $60+ is more than $50.

In Canada, NES games averaged $70 and now games average $60. Even without accounting for inflation, the NES games were more expensive.

Oh... and even if they were only $50 in 1990, the inflation for this would mean that the game cost $89.48 today.

Also, Super Mario Bros. 3 cost me $84.99. Today this would be $152.10.

OP: Games (not DLC) are cheaper now. They are driven down by the amount of competition there is out there and not because they are too expensive.

 

[VoidWanderer]

This idea has been stewing in my mind for a while, but some recent visits to Amazon.com really drove the point home.

If there's any indication of how overpriced retail games are, it's how quickly their value drops off. Mass Effect 3, a AAA game launched less than two months ago, was 50% off on Amazon the other day. The sale has ended, but its price is stil $20 less than it was at launch. Many big-name titles from last fall are now in the $30-$40 range on Amazon. Only the very best, highest-rated titles are still worth $50+. Driver: San Francisco came out in September. It's now going for less than $20, as are most games a year or more old. No other medium has anywhere near this level of dramatic price depreciation. The standard price of a Blu-Ray movie on Amazon, for instance, seems to be about $25, the movie's age be damned.

Oftentimes it seems like games and game systems are priced so as to punish the early adopters, or at least make them regret their early adoption. Pay $60 within a launch, buy all the DLC, and then watch as they release a $30 Game of The Year edition with all the bonus content included at no extra charge. I got my Xbox 360 in late 2006. The price was $400 for a 20GB hard drive and a unit that has RRoD'ed on me twice. Now, for the same price, someone can buy an Xbox 360 Slim, which runs quieter, uses less energy, and is more reliable, has a 250GB hard drive, and comes with Kinect and two (admittedly mediocre) games.

I feel like this merits more resentment than I generally see, and it's obviously a factor in used game sales. What do you all think? Should this change? Is it something we'll just have to live with?

In what currency?

I live in Australia, you only get any sympathy from me if your price is in GBP.

If not, please quit complaining!

Our new game price? $99.95 AUD. Go to a currency converter, compare, then get back to me.

I'm American, admittedly. I'm somewhat familiar with Brazilian gaming prices, though. R$ 180 converts to about $100 US. Speaking of which?how bad is piracy in Australia? Street vendors in Brazil very often sell pirated games because the prices at full retail are ridiculous.

I am unsure as to the 'piracy' scene here, but as I mainly stick to console gaming from my local EB store, it is very difficult for me to gauge.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I feel like this merits more resentment than I generally see, and it's obviously a factor in used game sales. What do you all think? Should this change? Is it something we'll just have to live with?

It might be too high for you, I think it's reasonable.

On the other hand videogames have never been cheaper, especially if you play on the PC, just as an example super mario 3 was sold at the equivalent of 80 USD. If anything, if you play with a mouse and keyboard and buy on GoG, Amazon and Steam having some self control you will end up with more very good games that you can play at amazingly low prices.

I still think that having a high price to begin with for those who want it day 1 or who want to give more support to the makers and then have the price drop for those who can afford or are unwilling to pay the full new price is good.

This, honestly with my old console library and the pace at which good games are released nowdays, I only buy videogames who's devs i want to support. That's the reason i bought Botanicula or GW 2, while skipping Batman or (a new copy of) ME 3.

Our new game price? $99.95 AUD. Go to a currency converter, compare, then get back to me.

If you like EA and play on the PC, find a way to buy it in Mexican Pesos. For some random reason they sell the $59 USD games for $30 bucks.

Actually, they have been cheaper. All that study does is compare the price to inflation, without adjusting for wage differences between now and then. Inflation is at an all time high, but wages are also at an all time low; wage increases fell behind the rate of inflation sometime in the 70's, so while $60 may be a smaller percentage of the GDP than it used to be, for Joe Six Pack, it's still a huge chunk of his wages. This is really the same problem with comparing current American prices to current Australian prices.

OT: yes, the prices on games are too damn high. They should be $20-25, same as a DVD, because that's what they're in competition with and they cost a good bit less to make. The most expensive game of all time cost $100 million to make. An average blockbuster movie runs at least $150 million, with some going up to $200 or $300 million. And don't give me that alternative revenue source B.S.. Almost all successful movies make back their budget and make a profit on the initial ticket sales, which tend to run between $10 and $15 a seat. The few successes that don't make it there make it on DVD sales, which top out around $25. TV spots and the like are mostly just using an old movie to advertise for a new one. You know why movies are able to make a profit at such a low price? Because that's how the economy works. You make more money if you sell a lot of items at a low price than if you sell a few at a high price.

Valve understands this; in fact, when they first started cutting their prices for sale, they saw something like four times the increase in sales they were expecting, beyond what even a high school understanding of economics -- which is all one needs to know to understand that lower price = more customers = more money -- would suggest. The studios are leaving money on the table by trying to gouge their existing customers. It's really the same problem the comic book industry had after the 90's; trying to squeeze more and more out of an ever smaller demographic. I mean, comics were once something that everyone read as a kid, and not too long ago. It's now something that only the nerdy do, and something only grown nerds with large amounts of disposable income can afford. Right now, that's where videogames are headed; they're pricing themselves out of their own market, and are in danger of pricing the next generation of consumers so far out of the market that they start playing sports or something instead.

 

[Starke]

Its still been high I remember my parents saying I couldn't get an SNES game because it costs 50 dollars. Hell you don't remember N64 games costing around 54 dollars? These were consoles that came before even the Xbox.

I was there, I remember. But the fact is you started with an absolute statement that flat out is not, and was never, true.

And indie companies just don't count. They don't have the "quality" (as in attention getting big marketing that larger companies have) to ask 60 dollars for a game. Nor did they put as much money into it so they can still make a profit selling it for 20 dollars.

The only place where that statement has any validity is in the current megapublisher environment. You look back 10 or 15 years, not only would you see more publishers, a lot more, you'd also see that a lot of them were much smaller publishing situations built up around supporting a single developer.

I realize this might be hard to grasp but Diablo 2 was an indi game and by that logic couldn't have supported a $50 sticker price. Tack on the expansion and it was $80. To say nothing of Bungie in the 90s, who was running an even tighter margin by being mac only (at first) and still releasing full cost products.

The last two I can think of were Blizzard and Zenimax (Bethesda). Even Bungie once published someone else's game (Abuse), though I can't remember who the actual devs were for that.

Indy titles may be an obscure area of the market today, but they used to be the norm.

OT: yes, the prices on games are too damn high. They should be $20-25, same as a DVD, because that's what they're in competition with and they cost a good bit less to make. The most expensive game of all time cost $100 million to make. An average blockbuster movie runs at least $150 million, with some going up to $200 or $300 million. And don't give me that alternative revenue source B.S.. Almost all successful movies make back their budget and make a profit on the initial ticket sales, which tend to run between $10 and $15 a seat. The few successes that don't make it there make it on DVD sales, which top out around $25. TV spots and the like are mostly just using an old movie to advertise for a new one. You know why movies are able to make a profit at such a low price? Because that's how the economy works. You make more money if you sell a lot of items at a low price than if you sell a few at a high price.

The sad fact is, that while this is really sound logic, it's not logic the publishers seem to understand. The idea that "hey, we could sell three times as many copies if we cut the price in half" doesn't seem to enter into it at all. Which is more mind boggling when you consider Torchlight's sales figures. I'd honestly say 20-30 is the sweet spot for game pricing, which is, ironically about where Bluray disks end up (from what I've noticed).

Ironically, the logic that seems to be at work in industry management is that there are X many gamers. If they reduce the price that will not lure new non-gamers to become gamers, rather it will simply cannibalize their profits. Now, my understanding was that this was in fact the philosophy back around ten years ago. I don't know if Modern Warfare shook that perception (it should have), but EA's current tact of playing follow the leader suggests that this thought process is alive and well.

 

[SEXTON HALE]

If I think the game is worth the price I will gladly pay it.
If I dont think it is worth it I wont get it till the price drops.
It usually takes around a year or so for a full price 60 euro game to drop by about half.
It usually does'nt go down more than that for a while though and stays fairly steady.

 

[Tanakh]

Actually, they have been cheaper. All that study does is compare the price to inflation, without adjusting for wage differences between now and then. Inflation is at an all time high, but wages are also at an all time low; wage increases fell behind the rate of inflation sometime in the 70's, so while $60 may be a smaller percentage of the GDP than it used to be, for Joe Six Pack, it's still a huge chunk of his wages. This is really the same problem with comparing current American prices to current Australian prices.

You are doing your math wrong, inflation is not an at all time high nor wages at an all time low unless you define "all time" as the last 10 years.

The average household income has indeed lagged behind the cost of living, but let's use that instead of inlfation but when they say it's the "lowest in 10 years" they meant adjusted with inflation, in 1990 the average income was around $40,000 and now it is around $50,000. Anyway let's see with inflation Mario 3 would cost the equivalent of 80 USD at launch (the market value of the product) with houshold income adjustments it would cost an equivalent of 59 USD (the percived cost of the product), or take Mario 64 suggested retail price and use the houshold income adjustment it would cost you more than 80 USD (granted, it was a specially expensive title).

So... I really don't see how you are doing your math to say they have been cheaper.

The most expensive game of all time cost $100 million to make.

Valve understands this; in fact, when they first started cutting their prices for sale, they saw something like four times the increase in sales they were expecting, beyond what even a high school understanding of economics

Ahh... all that is factually wrong btw. Mhee, i am out anyway, c ya later.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Actually, they have been cheaper. All that study does is compare the price to inflation, without adjusting for wage differences between now and then. Inflation is at an all time high, but wages are also at an all time low; wage increases fell behind the rate of inflation sometime in the 70's, so while $60 may be a smaller percentage of the GDP than it used to be, for Joe Six Pack, it's still a huge chunk of his wages. This is really the same problem with comparing current American prices to current Australian prices.

You are doing your math wrong, inflation is not an at all time high nor wages at an all time low unless you define "all time" as the last 10 years.

The average household income has indeed lagged behind the cost of living, but let's use that instead of inlfation but when they say it's the "lowest in 10 years" they meant adjusted with inflation, in 1990 the average income was around $40,000 and now it is around $50,000. Anyway let's see with inflation Mario 3 would cost the equivalent of 80 USD at launch (the market value of the product) with houshold income adjustments it would cost an equivalent of 59 USD (the percived cost of the product), or take Mario 64 suggested retail price and use the houshold income adjustment it would cost you more than 80 USD (granted, it was a specially expensive title).

So... I really don't see how you are doing your math to say they have been cheaper.

Where on earth are you getting ten years? Income has been lagging behind cost of living since the 70's. And you showed it yourself with Mario 3; the claims that videogames used to be the equivalent of $90 a pop are ridiculous. Besides, both Mario 3 and Mario 64 were expensive titles in their day. It wasn't until last gen that we had standardized pricing for games; before that, there was a bit of give in the prices, with a definite high end and low end to the market. I remember really wanting the Lunar remakes for the PS1 as a kid, but not being able to afford the $60 (yes, $60 then) price tag, but I also remember plenty of games in the $20-$30 price range, with $40 being about where most games topped out. Cartridge based games were also more expensive than CD based games, because cartridges cost a fortune to reproduce. When working in bulk, you can print up an individual disc for a few pennies. A cartridge, on the other hand, is more on the order of dollars than cents. That's why Mario 3 and Mario 64 cost so much.

Edit:

The most expensive game of all time cost $100 million to make.

Valve understands this; in fact, when they first started cutting their prices for sale, they saw something like four times the increase in sales they were expecting, beyond what even a high school understanding of economics

Ahh... all that is factually wrong btw. Mhee, i am out anyway, c ya later.

wrong, you say?

I did find a source that said The Old Republic is now the most expensive game ever, at a whopping $200 million. But that's just one game. The average for a AAA game is still only $30 million, which has nothing on a blockbuster movie. $30 million would have been cheap for a blockbuster movie 30 years ago.

 

[Tanakh]

Where on earth are you getting ten years? Income has been lagging behind cost of living since the 70's. And you showed it yourself with Mario 3; the claims that videogames used to be the equivalent of $90 a pop are ridiculous. Besides, both Mario 3 and Mario 64 were expensive titles in their day. It wasn't until last gen that we had standardized pricing for games; before that, there was a bit of give in the prices, with a definite high end and low end to the market. I remember really wanting the Lunar remakes for the PS1 as a kid, but not being able to afford the $60 (yes, $60 then) price tag, but I also remember plenty of games in the $20-$30 price range, with $40 being about where most games topped out. Cartridge based games were also more expensive than CD based games, because cartridges cost a fortune to reproduce. When working in bulk, you can print up an individual disc for a few pennies. A cartridge, on the other hand, is more on the order of dollars than cents. That's why Mario 3 and Mario 64 cost so much.

10 years? It what the mass media normaly says, went with it. And to be fair, again you are factually wrong, not every year since the 70's the cost of living has been lagging, some clinton years were rather good.

Also, what i am showing you is that AAA titles were either more expensive (inflation) or as expensive (houshold income). There are still plenty of big studio games released in the $20-$30 price range, and a bunch more of indies released for less. Go and do the math mate, rememberance and gut feelings are bad when comming to price changes.

And no, cartrige cost is marginally higer, but the price is set by what the market will pay, not by the cost of production.

 

[Lugbzurg]

Seeing as how NES games would retail to prices like $70, inflation keeps going up, videogames are needing bigger and bigger production teams, and things like Steam, Good Old Games and games that are just old in general all exist, there really wasn't any point in bringing this up at all.

 

[arnoldthebird]

Meanwhile in Australia.

$100 for a new GAME!!!

Isn't it cheaper in America.

We really need to make games cheaper over here in Aus.

I am slowly starting to buy mine off the web, I walk into EB and all the good games are $90+, I am not made of money. And considering the fact the Aussie $ is stronger than the US $....something just isn't right, it can't cost THAT much to import etc.

 

[Callate]

So isn't what you're really saying, then, not "the price of games is too high", but rather, "I've been buying games too early"?

...More seriously, we have a kind of screwed up system in a lot of ways, not least among them the increasing drive to get people to purchase new games before a single review (or at least, a single review with expectations of credibility, as publishers start to mutter about denying advance copies to reviewers who don't offer guarantees of favorable press) is released.

But as I've said before, game prices- particularly in the United States- are actually artificially low. Most of them cost roughly the same amount as they did five or even ten years ago, frequently not keeping up with inflation, let alone the upward-spiraling production costs associated with the HD era.

Just wait until the PS4 and XBox 720 (or whatever they finally end up being called) come on to the market. You think the EAs and Activisions are sanding our collective genitalia now...

 

[samaugsch]

It's a matter of supply and demand, really. The more popular gaming becomes, the more expensive it'll get.

 

[Starke]

Meanwhile in Australia.

$100 for a new GAME!!!

Isn't it cheaper in America.

We really need to make games cheaper over here in Aus.

I am slowly starting to buy mine off the web, I walk into EB and all the good games are $90+, I am not made of money. And considering the fact the Aussie $ is stronger than the US $....something just isn't right, it can't cost THAT much to import etc.

Actually it can, well, more or less. It's not the actual import costs though, it's the protectionist tariffs that Oz slaps on imported goods. If it's a table or a lamp, you'll go for the locally produced one every time because "hey, what's the difference? Right?", but on games, you're actually looking at a product that doesn't simply replace with, "well, here's an Australian made game, so what's the difference?" I can't remember what the Tariff is, but it's something obscene, and makes the sales tax I pay on everything (~11%) look sane and reasonable.

At least, this is my understanding, I could be totally off base.

 

[Starke]

You are doing your math wrong, inflation is not an at all time high nor wages at an all time low unless you define "all time" as the last 10 years.

Honestly, stuff like this (what Owyn is saying) reminds me of the people who were saying "the economy sucks" back in 1998 or so. It didn't, it was actually doing quite well, but there were people still making the claim so they could back their arguments.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

As someone else said, the game is in high demand.

Barring that, I think everyone just loves to forget that games cost such a crapload of money to make these days. Let's look at some of the things that would drive the cost up on a triple A game.

Marketing
Shipping
Manufacturing
Shelf Space (Not too sure on this one)
And add some more money on the asking price so you can make at least some profit.

Not to mention the plain, simple fact that games are SOOO much more complicated to make. I mean, just LOOK at them. Compared to the Atari or even the SNES, these games look downright alien.

What a game costs to make is irrelevant. Games cost $60 because people buy them at that price. If people refused to pay $60, the price would go down. When the demand on a specific game goes down, so does the price. That can happen across the industry too and bring the standard price back down to $50, if people stopped paying $60.

Well, duh. That's true with any business. But just because a price has lowered down to $50 or lower doesn't mean it's an accurate price of the game.

 

[bullet_sandw1ch]

i think 60$ is justifiable if the game is single player only. that way, there is no multiplayer to rely on, no deserted battlefields, and SP only games tend to have more content . for example. prototype 2 is SP only, and i can see myself logging a lot of hours in it. couple that with the fact that i got prototype 1 for free with prototype 2 in a walmart sale, and ive got myself about 100 hours of fun [or around 2 months for me, judging by the amount i play video games].

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

Now you just need to be this guy and then you can get everyone to be fascinated.

 

[Epona]

As someone else said, the game is in high demand.

Barring that, I think everyone just loves to forget that games cost such a crapload of money to make these days. Let's look at some of the things that would drive the cost up on a triple A game.

Marketing
Shipping
Manufacturing
Shelf Space (Not too sure on this one)
And add some more money on the asking price so you can make at least some profit.

Not to mention the plain, simple fact that games are SOOO much more complicated to make. I mean, just LOOK at them. Compared to the Atari or even the SNES, these games look downright alien.

What a game costs to make is irrelevant. Games cost $60 because people buy them at that price. If people refused to pay $60, the price would go down. When the demand on a specific game goes down, so does the price. That can happen across the industry too and bring the standard price back down to $50, if people stopped paying $60.

Well, duh. That's true with any business. But just because a price has lowered down to $50 or lower doesn't mean it's an accurate price of the game.

There is no such thing as "accurate prince". What does that even mean?

 

[Arnoxthe1]

There is no such thing as "accurate prince". What does that even mean?

Meaning what the price should be to cover all costs and gain a reasonable amount of profit from the game.