Why are gamers so cheap? Should games cost more?

[evilstonermonkey]

Why are gamers cheap? Because the ones that have the money to buy a lot of games don't have the time, and the ones that have the time don't have the money. So they have to try and get the most bang for their buck. Hell, here in Australia a new release game is around $100, usually $110, and then if you want a fancy special edition...

Meanwhile I'm an unemployed student. So I don't have the time OR the money.

 

[Sabiancym]

Look at the quality and depth of games nowadays compared to before. It's considerably better. Yes it is partially due to better technology, but it also due to the increased revenue.

Oh boy, and the trolling has begun

That's just it, the quality and depth don't keep up with the price.
And extra revenue for the developers usually means more expensive tech, not necessarily better games overall.

If more expensive games mean what you say they mean, then why are so many gamers complaining? Some gamers don't complain about the price because they're poor, but because most games don't deliver on the price (in their humble opinions).

No, they complain because they are jaded and comparing the game to the best of the best. I'm not saying that every game should cost the same. I'm saying the best games should cost more.

A Dead or Alive Volleyball game should not cost the same as a Dragon Age or GTA.


Compared to the average game 10-15 years ago, today's games are amazing. Nostalgia and jadedness keep people from realizing it.

 

[Arehexes]

A minute long music track costs 70p.
A 2 hour film costs £10.
A 6 hour game costs £50.
A 10 hour book costs £5.

6 hours of music costs £42, 6 hours of films costs £30, 6 hours of books cost £3 and 6 hours of games costs £50.

Though it really depends on the developer, games are up there with movies on the poor cost for time. It isn't that simple though; music and games have the best replay value.

There are plenty of games with well over 20 hours. Why do people expect to get those for the same price as a crappy 5 hour game?

That's the whole point. The better developers should get rewarded with more money. Which would allow them to make even better games.

Because most of those "crappy" games put more time into other things they warrants the budget increase (Like the visuals and scripting for the cut scenes in games). Also I did not make a "shocker" response I just didn't agree with you, like others have done. And I don't see better games to be honest, I see the same damn rehashes every year. Companies aren't throwing money on risks anymore, they are pretty much retouching things that are already popular. And most DLC that comes out is nothing but a Key to unlock data, or just maps to add to multiplayer. There is not a lot of DLC that really adds to a games length outside of multiplayer. I remember before online when a game would get an expansion which add more gameplay time to it, now we don't have that anymore. End of the story not a lot of people agree with you and we are the ones who speak with our money not just you. And there are a lot of great games out there that don't cost 60 bucks and is short, try to expand your gaming tastes. You can find fun 60 dollar games that play for a long time.

 

[Quellist]

As a Uk resident generally i pay around £40 for a game which currently equals about $65 US, imo this isnt 'cheap' in any way and with the extra price of DLC it gets even more expensive. As an older gamer i remember when games were around £5 each and some retailed for as little as £2.

Yes the whole business has changed from a cottage industry to a multi-billion dollar concern that rivals Hollywood but at the same time i would say a lot of the charm has gone out of mainstream gaming to cater to the mass market and i suspect some of the development teams are fat with people who do very little (QA departments seem to have grown alarmingly in size yet many games still seem poorly tested with obvious bugs that are only fixed later-Brink i am definitely looking at you here).

I think games are generally priced according to what the market will accept and DLC is a crafty way of getting around this by giving people the option of buying a basic product and then making micropayments to get the full experience.

 

[Sabiancym]

Why are gamers cheap? Because the ones that have the money to buy a lot of games don't have the time, and the ones that have the time don't have the money. So they have to try and get the most bang for their buck. Hell, here in Australia a new release game is around $100, usually $110, and then if you want a fancy special edition...

Meanwhile I'm an unemployed student. So I don't have the time OR the money.

But what if a game that costs you $200 bucks was twice as long and twice as good as current games? Would you buy it? I don't see why not.



That's what a lot of people dont' seem to get, or just aren't believing. The cost per entertainment ratio would be better, or at the very least, exactly the same.

Would I rather pay $50 and play the current Mass Effect?
Or would I rather pay $100 and play a Mass Effect that is twice as long, more graphically detailed, and better acted?

The choice is a no brainer.


Of course it's not that simple, but generally speaking, that's how it would work.

 

[Woodsey]

Game prices are just fine the way they are.

 

[Pirate1019]

Modern economics backs up my point. Every company under the sun knows that the only way to make more money, is to put more money in.

You're forgetting that the bottleneck for most games today is the complete lack of creativity on the developer's part, or the unwillingness for publishers to risk funding new ideas.

If we want good games we need to stop encouraging developers to churn out blockbuster titles with absurd budgets. Lower budget games pose less risk so experimentation is feasible. It's why indie games are so crazy popular at the moment.

Videogames are starting to hit a plateau in technical quality, and gameplay quality will stagnate if more money is just thrown at games with the naive thought that quality rises in direct proportion to budget.

 

[MuppeTeN]

Because I don't work yet and that price is something I can afford while still buying lunch at college, Once i start working, i would have no problem to pay 60-80 for a GOOD game.

 

[Sabiancym]

A minute long music track costs 70p.
A 2 hour film costs £10.
A 6 hour game costs £50.
A 10 hour book costs £5.

6 hours of music costs £42, 6 hours of films costs £30, 6 hours of books cost £3 and 6 hours of games costs £50.

Though it really depends on the developer, games are up there with movies on the poor cost for time. It isn't that simple though; music and games have the best replay value.

There are plenty of games with well over 20 hours. Why do people expect to get those for the same price as a crappy 5 hour game?

That's the whole point. The better developers should get rewarded with more money. Which would allow them to make even better games.

Because most of those "crappy" games put more time into other things they warrants the budget increase (Like the visuals and scripting for the cut scenes in games). Also I did not make a "shocker" response I just didn't agree with you, like others have done. And I don't see better games to be honest, I see the same damn rehashes every year. Companies aren't throwing money on risks anymore, they are pretty much retouching things that are already popular. And most DLC that comes out is nothing but a Key to unlock data, or just maps to add to multiplayer. There is not a lot of DLC that really adds to a games length outside of multiplayer. I remember before online when a game would get an expansion which add more gameplay time to it, now we don't have that anymore. End of the story not a lot of people agree with you and we are the ones who speak with our money not just you. And there are a lot of great games out there that don't cost 60 bucks and is short, try to expand your gaming tastes. You can find fun 60 dollar games that play for a long time.

Companies keep churning out sequels and rehashes because they know people will buy them. At $50-$60, people can afford to risk the money on a game they don't know much about.

At $100, only the good games would make the big money. Instead of a saturated market with crap everywhere, you'd have a more focused market with quality games. You'd have more information about the game, more demos, and be able to make more informed decisions on the games you buy.

And nowhere did I say that every game should cost the same. So I don't know where you got that "expand your gaming tastes" line from.

 

[Arehexes]

Look at the quality and depth of games nowadays compared to before. It's considerably better. Yes it is partially due to better technology, but it also due to the increased revenue.

Oh boy, and the trolling has begun

That's just it, the quality and depth don't keep up with the price.
And extra revenue for the developers usually means more expensive tech, not necessarily better games overall.

If more expensive games mean what you say they mean, then why are so many gamers complaining? Some gamers don't complain about the price because they're poor, but because most games don't deliver on the price (in their humble opinions).

No, they complain because they are jaded and comparing the game to the best of the best. I'm not saying that every game should cost the same. I'm saying the best games should cost more.

A Dead or Alive Volleyball game should not cost the same as a Dragon Age or GTA.


Compared to the average game 10-15 years ago, today's games are amazing. Nostalgia and jadedness keep people from realizing it.

Dude you are so full of it, it's not funny anymore. I for one realize today's games beat the piss out of games from the past. But the problem is this The tech from the past has prevented games from the past to look like games from today[\b]. It costs big money to render the graphics a lot of today's games use. You are just pissed no one here is agreeing with your stupid idea of making games cost more. Here is an example Disgaea 3 is a PS3 game but has the graphics of a PS2 game.

And I bring up stuff from the past because your sitting here saying the tech has nothing to do with it, which is not true. If a system can't render 3D in this day in age it shouldn't cost as much to make. The games on the 3DS are projected to increase in stores because of the tech going in to the games to make them look the best they can (and make use of the 3D). And this is because of the tech behind that system.

Dude just face the facts no one wants prices of any thing to raise higher then it should be, why not increase the cost of books so the author can write more making the book last longer.
Disgaea 3:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2008/239/942139_20080827_screen005.jpg

Disgaea 2:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/187/930240_20060707_screen002.jpg

How much should disgaea 3 cost? If we are talking length then it's worth over 200 bucks because of the time spent need to finish everything if you don't use exploits. And you know a lot of fans complained that Disgaea 3 looked like a crappy PS2 game for the most part.

I think your the jaded one here because your pretty much whining that games should cost more to be better when you your self said

 

[kayisking]

Well, I already pay at least $80 for most new releases anyway, so as long as they don't expect to push the cost of my games up any further I'll be happy, but I do agree that some games are worth more than others, a 50 hour CRPG is definitely worth your $80-100 (if its good), but a 5 hour hack and slasher or action game isn't, especially if theres no Multiplayer, Call of Duty for example, well worth it, Mirrors Edge, hell no.

I agree with the MMO comment though, they are easilly the best way to game on a budget, especially with all the F2P ones getting around these days (LotRO, Runes of Magic, Allods online etc).

So are you saying that Stalin vs. The Martians is worth more then Arkham Asylum. Lenght isn't the sole factor that decides a games worth, hell it isn't even that much of an important factor.
Ps. Please excuse my poor English, I am not a native speaker.

 

[Umberjon]

@ OP
I just had to post.
You do realize that enormous amounts of money don't go into the actual development but rather in advertising? Advertising costs could in some cases even be higher than the cost of developing a game.
I work in a publishing company for expert handbooks and we have a set budget for creating a handbook and an almost unlimited budget for advertising. If we raised the cost of our handbooks and got more money out of it we would boost the advertising but keep the budget limit for creating the content.
And I can guarantee you that the same thing would happen with EA or any other gaming publisher.

I'm guessing you don't work so you never really have to spend your own money, earned by hard work?

 

[Sabiancym]

Modern economics backs up my point. Every company under the sun knows that the only way to make more money, is to put more money in.

You're forgetting that the bottleneck for most games today is the complete lack of creativity on the developer's part, or the unwillingness for publishers to risk funding new ideas.

If we want good games we need to stop encouraging developers to churn out blockbuster titles with absurd budgets. Lower budget games pose less risk so experimentation is feasible. It's why indie games are so crazy popular at the moment.

Videogames are starting to hit a plateau in technical quality, and gameplay quality will stagnate if more money is just thrown at games with the naive thought that quality rises in direct proportion to budget.

People have said that technology can't get any better every decade since the industrial revolution. It's never true. Technology and therefore games will always get better.

There would still be indie games, still be cheaper experimentation games. Nowhere did I say that every game would cost the same. It's just that the best games should cost more to increase the quality.

 

[maturin]

Not until the big-time releases actually start releasing more content, rather than less. I expect prices to go up with the next console generation, and understand that, though.

 

[Jandau]

Because we don't all live in the US/UK and the $60+ price tag isn't as mild to everyone as it is to some people. I know, this doesn't apply to the people living in high income countries, but to some of us, gaming is already quite expensive. We don't want it getting any worse in that regard.

 

[Arehexes]

A minute long music track costs 70p.
A 2 hour film costs £10.
A 6 hour game costs £50.
A 10 hour book costs £5.

6 hours of music costs £42, 6 hours of films costs £30, 6 hours of books cost £3 and 6 hours of games costs £50.

Though it really depends on the developer, games are up there with movies on the poor cost for time. It isn't that simple though; music and games have the best replay value.

There are plenty of games with well over 20 hours. Why do people expect to get those for the same price as a crappy 5 hour game?

That's the whole point. The better developers should get rewarded with more money. Which would allow them to make even better games.

Because most of those "crappy" games put more time into other things they warrants the budget increase (Like the visuals and scripting for the cut scenes in games). Also I did not make a "shocker" response I just didn't agree with you, like others have done. And I don't see better games to be honest, I see the same damn rehashes every year. Companies aren't throwing money on risks anymore, they are pretty much retouching things that are already popular. And most DLC that comes out is nothing but a Key to unlock data, or just maps to add to multiplayer. There is not a lot of DLC that really adds to a games length outside of multiplayer. I remember before online when a game would get an expansion which add more gameplay time to it, now we don't have that anymore. End of the story not a lot of people agree with you and we are the ones who speak with our money not just you. And there are a lot of great games out there that don't cost 60 bucks and is short, try to expand your gaming tastes. You can find fun 60 dollar games that play for a long time.

Companies keep churning out sequels and rehashes because they know people will buy them. At $50-$60, people can afford to risk the money on a game they don't know much about.

At $100, only the good games would make the big money. Instead of a saturated market with crap everywhere, you'd have a more focused market with quality games. You'd have more information about the game, more demos, and be able to make more informed decisions on the games you buy.

And nowhere did I say that every game should cost the same. So I don't know where you got that "expand your gaming tastes" line from.

I only "expand your gaming tastes" because you can find great games for cheap if you look away from AAA titles. The NIS games are known for sucking your life away for a cool 60 bucks (people have spent 100's of hours on their games). Also at $50-$60 people can afford a risk? Dude I'm wondering do you work for your own money or have to budget it for anything else other then games, cause I only see that kind of attitude from people who could care less where their money goes. And no a increase in costs would not insure all these things you are suggesting. Everything you are saying is pure speculation for the most part, you act like if we let publishers (not the developers but publishers) raise the price we get a better deal. By that logic raise gas prices then so we get better gas.

 

[Sabiancym]

I just had to post.
You do realize that enormous amounts of money don't go into the actual development but rather in advertising? Advertising costs could in some cases even be higher than the cost of developing a game.
I work in a publishing company for expert handbooks and we have a set budget for creating a handbook and an almost unlimited budget for advertising. If we raised the cost of our handbooks and got more money out of it we would boost the advertising but keep the budget limit for creating the content.
And I can guarantee you that the same thing would happen with EA or any other gaming publisher.

I'm guessing you don't work so you never really have to spend your own money, earned by hard work?

What the hell is your problem? Saying I don't work? I own an industrial supply company. I'm sorry you don't agree with me, but you don't need to start flaming me for it.

There is no question as to whether companies would put more money into their games if they made more money. It's already been done and has been done since the industry was created. The games nowadays even after accounting for inflation cost considerably more than they did even 10 years ago.


If you want to have a discussion that's fine, but drop the insults.

 

[AndrewF022]

Well, I already pay at least $80 for most new releases anyway, so as long as they don't expect to push the cost of my games up any further I'll be happy, but I do agree that some games are worth more than others, a 50 hour CRPG is definitely worth your $80-100 (if its good), but a 5 hour hack and slasher or action game isn't, especially if theres no Multiplayer, Call of Duty for example, well worth it, Mirrors Edge, hell no.

I agree with the MMO comment though, they are easilly the best way to game on a budget, especially with all the F2P ones getting around these days (LotRO, Runes of Magic, Allods online etc).

So are you saying that Stalin vs. The Martians is worth more then Arkham Asylum. Lenght isn't the sole factor that decides a games worth, hell it isn't even that much of an important factor.
Ps. Please excuse my poor English, I am not a native speaker.

Of course not, Quality > Length at all times.. but what I was getting at is that a solid 50 hour CRPG.. say Dragon Age: Origins is worth paying more for than a short game of equal quality. However, that being said, I long but bad game, taking your example of Stalin vs. Martians would not be worth anywhere near as much as Arkham Asylum should, based on quality of content, not length.