The Price of Games is TOO DAMN HIGH

[Epona]

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.

Once again, the price has nothing to do with the cost to make a game. Do you think $60 covers the cost of production? No, well what if they sell 1 Million, that's 60 Million but the game only cost 10 Million, is that reasonable profit? What is reasonable profit?

Of course, you should just forget all that and realize that the reason games are $60 this gen is because they convinced people that license fees had to paid (as if they never had license fees before this gen) and that was worth an extra $10.

If they could get away with it, they would be selling games for $100 each but they can't. This point is also proven by the fact that games cost $60, no matter how much they cost to produce. The $1 million game is $60 and so is the $50 Million game.

 

[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.

Once again, the price has nothing to do with the cost to make a game. Do you think $60 covers the cost of production? No, well what if they sell 1 Million, that's 60 Million but the game only cost 10 Million, is that reasonable profit? What is reasonable profit?

Of course, you should just forget all that and realize that the reason games are $60 this gen is because they convinced people that license fees had to paid (as if they never had license fees before this gen) and that was worth an extra $10.

If they could get away with it, they would be selling games for $100 each but they can't. This point is also proven by the fact that games cost $60, no matter how much they cost to produce. The $1 million game is $60 and so is the $50 Million game.

Well, of course they would. In the end, the consumers need to vote no with their money. However, sometimes a game truly is worth $60 (i.e. Skyrim. Haven't regretted that purchase yet.) and by giving more money to a publisher, it gives them much more of a chance to make more quality games.

 

[Epona]

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.

Once again, the price has nothing to do with the cost to make a game. Do you think $60 covers the cost of production? No, well what if they sell 1 Million, that's 60 Million but the game only cost 10 Million, is that reasonable profit? What is reasonable profit?

Of course, you should just forget all that and realize that the reason games are $60 this gen is because they convinced people that license fees had to paid (as if they never had license fees before this gen) and that was worth an extra $10.

If they could get away with it, they would be selling games for $100 each but they can't. This point is also proven by the fact that games cost $60, no matter how much they cost to produce. The $1 million game is $60 and so is the $50 Million game.

Well, of course they would. In the end, the consumers need to vote no with their money. However, sometimes a game truly is worth $60 (i.e. Skyrim. Haven't regretted that purchase yet.) and by giving more money to a publisher, it gives them much more of a chance to make more quality games.

To me Skyrim isn't worth $60 and it certainly wasn't when it launched with more bugs than Men in Black. Opinions about a games worth will vary but the pricing is standard because people will pay it. Production costs mean very little.

 

[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.

Once again, the price has nothing to do with the cost to make a game. Do you think $60 covers the cost of production? No, well what if they sell 1 Million, that's 60 Million but the game only cost 10 Million, is that reasonable profit? What is reasonable profit?

Of course, you should just forget all that and realize that the reason games are $60 this gen is because they convinced people that license fees had to paid (as if they never had license fees before this gen) and that was worth an extra $10.

If they could get away with it, they would be selling games for $100 each but they can't. This point is also proven by the fact that games cost $60, no matter how much they cost to produce. The $1 million game is $60 and so is the $50 Million game.

Well, of course they would. In the end, the consumers need to vote no with their money. However, sometimes a game truly is worth $60 (i.e. Skyrim. Haven't regretted that purchase yet.) and by giving more money to a publisher, it gives them much more of a chance to make more quality games.

To me Skyrim isn't worth $60 and it certainly wasn't when it launched with more bugs than Men in Black. Opinions about a games worth will vary but the pricing is standard because people will play it. Production costs mean very little.

Except the bugs are certainly understandable in a game as big as Skyrim. I mean, seriously, was I the only person that expected a lot of bugs? Everyone's talking about it like it's something recent and completely game-breaking.

 

[Epona]

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.

Once again, the price has nothing to do with the cost to make a game. Do you think $60 covers the cost of production? No, well what if they sell 1 Million, that's 60 Million but the game only cost 10 Million, is that reasonable profit? What is reasonable profit?

Of course, you should just forget all that and realize that the reason games are $60 this gen is because they convinced people that license fees had to paid (as if they never had license fees before this gen) and that was worth an extra $10.

If they could get away with it, they would be selling games for $100 each but they can't. This point is also proven by the fact that games cost $60, no matter how much they cost to produce. The $1 million game is $60 and so is the $50 Million game.

Well, of course they would. In the end, the consumers need to vote no with their money. However, sometimes a game truly is worth $60 (i.e. Skyrim. Haven't regretted that purchase yet.) and by giving more money to a publisher, it gives them much more of a chance to make more quality games.

To me Skyrim isn't worth $60 and it certainly wasn't when it launched with more bugs than Men in Black. Opinions about a games worth will vary but the pricing is standard because people will play it. Production costs mean very little.

Except the bugs are certainly understandable in a game as big as Skyrim. I mean, seriously, was I the only person that expected a lot of bugs? Everyone's talking about it like it's something recent and completely game-breaking.

You got that many bugs because you accepted them. The game being unplayable on the PS3 for many is NOT ACCEPTABLE. Bethesda thought they could get away with it though because people were accepting of so many bugs in their past games. So, have they fixed alot of the bugs by now? If so, they should have done that BEFORE release.

I don't even want to imagine how much money they put into Skyrim but an unplayable game (PS3) isn't worth $10 much less $60.

 

[Epona]

It seems I need to re-post this. Again, back in the day you were charged per meg. Also with the N64, the average price range for a game was $60-$80 (In the US anyway). So, if nothing else, pricing is now consistent.

Here is a cliping from a magazine from the early ninety (note, these are US prices).

Spoiler: games prices in the 90's

Those aren't MSRP, those are retailer prices.

 

[SlaveNumber23]

At least you aren't in Australia, where we are paying a ridiculous $80-100 for games. Paying only $60 for games? that would be a luxury.

 

[Epona]

At least you aren't in Australia, where we are paying a ridiculous $80-100 for games. Paying only $60 for games? that would be a luxury.

Your min wage is like double what ours is right? Why are you paying $120 standard then?

 

[Padwolf]

When I think the game is worth the full price I will get it. When I don't think it is, I'll just wait for the price drop or get it second hand. I haven't paid full price for a game since Catherine. £45 is quite a bit to pay.

 

[Random Argument Man]

If you usually wait a little, you can find good games in a bargain bin at your local Wal-mart or other stores. I found Bulletstorm, Vanquish, Eternal Sonata, Borderlands, Mass effect, Dragon Age (complete edition), Mass effect 2 and others for about 15$-20$ each.

I didn't buy them since I don't have a Ps3, Xbox and cash. The sad life of being an university student....

 

[MercurySteam]

I have only one thing to say; come live in my country where new games go for $110 and then tell me that you couldn't possibly be worse off.

 

[Pompey71]

You don't buy it, they don't charge it. It's the consumer at fault here. If for the next year NO-ONE purchased a game at £39.99 in the UK, the price would be dropped, but we don't. We're greedy and want our games the moment they come out and for that privilege, we are overcharged. Capitalism at it's very best!

 

[Suncatcher]

I haven't paid more than ten dollars for a game in years. Most are under five. Let's hear it for Steam sales!

 

[Th37thTrump3t]

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.

You can't just go with what something was priced at 30 years ago and say it was less money. By today's standards it would be but the value of money was different 30 years ago compared to today. Back then $50 would be roughly around $105 today. You gotta count in inflation when you're dealing with decades.

 

[Michael Collett]

In Australia, 120 new AAA titles is standard. Hell I still haven't seen Mario Galaxy 2 for under 90 bucks.

The whole 'you have double minimum wage you need to pay double argument is balls'. Obviously domestic goods will be more expensive, because suppliers of those goods have higher costs.

The sale of international goods is purely 'these people can afford to pay more'. To the seller this means sales in Australia are worth double the sale of the same product in the US minus the import costs. For something like a digital download this cost is simply the trade tarrif. The idea of charging percentage increased pricing based on relative cost of living, is simply gouging.

Luckily, it's possible to buy PC and PS3 games from the US because these formats aren't location restricted. While in the US on business I stocked up on second hand games, because even these are cheaper. In Australia a recent second hand AAA will set you back 90 bucks. I still haven't seen a copy of Super Mario Galaxy 2 for under 60 bucks, getting well into it's second year now...

 

[gorfias]

I'd say TC's only valid point is that it can be frustrating to pay $60 for something that drops to next to nothing a few months later (Just got Deus Ex for $7 on STEAM). But when you are really excited about something, you have the money, and feel it right to treat yourself, then, cough up the damn doe. If Saints Row 3 drops down to $5 tomorrow, I won't regret the fun I've had over the last few months.

Compare it to going out to the theater. If I take my wife and kids, and we get snacks, I can easily drop $100. If I wait for a few months, the same movie may be on Netflix streaming. But if I really want to see it, I'm not going to wait. We all deserve a splurge once in a while. And for those thing that you can wait for? That they drop, even for consoles, down to $20 within a few months? Buying something like Fallout Vegas for $18 at Sam's club will not make me feel the publisher ripped me off.

 

[Epona]

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.

You can't just go with what something was priced at 30 years ago and say it was less money. By today's standards it would be but the value of money was different 30 years ago compared to today. Back then $50 would be roughly around $105 today. You gotta count in inflation when you're dealing with decades.

Yes, I can say that NES games costed $50, because they did. You wanna take inflation into account but do you also want to take other factors into account? Things like technology getting cheaper as it matures, the current recession and the fact that people are already feeling strained by the $60 price tag and would not pay $105 today?

BTW, everyone has a different number for what $50 in NES days is worth today. Not that it matters, just an FYI.

 

[Epona]

I have only one thing to say; come live in my country where new games go for $110 and then tell me that you couldn't possibly be worse off.

So games are too high in your country too. Why do people feel the need to belittle the price in one country because the price is even higher in their country. If I paid $20 for a hot dog and you paid $30, does that mean $20 isn't too much for a hot dog?

 

[samaugsch]

At least you aren't in Australia, where we are paying a ridiculous $80-100 for games. Paying only $60 for games? that would be a luxury.

Yeah, I think Yahtzee mentioned how ridiculously overpriced games are in your country at least in one of his episodes. Do they tax video games over there like crazy or what?