Why are gamers so cheap? Should games cost more?

[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.

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.

My apoligies, I seem to have misunderstood your point, and I'm glad you agree.

 

[Arehexes]

@ 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?

I don't think he does because of this line

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.

 

[plugav]

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.

But how do you make more money? Not by charging more, but by selling more.

Also, note that the budget is not controlled by developers (unless they're indie) but by publishers. Publishers are usually not interested in making better games, they're interested in making more money. And they're not willing to gamble, they want a sure profit. That's why the biggest budgets usually belong to sequels.

 

[Raioken18]

The TC hasn't taken into account that lots of extra costs are involved.
For example if you own a PC, it requires constant maintenance and upgrades, you already pay for peripherals such as gaming keyboards, mice and screens. For Console gamers it's not much different, those consoles tend to break down quite a lot and there are periperals that need to be taken into account, controllers, new peripherals like motion censors and stuff... It's not exactly cheap even before you get to playing games.

Secondly the cost of gaming in my region (Australia) has increased dramatically, where as during the N64 generation games cost between $40 and $60, most new games cost between $90 and $120, thats a 100% increase in terms of cost.

Also there is another downside to gaming these days, games that require online registration are unrefundable, so you may be paying $120 for something that won't work for you even though you meet the requirements, and in all fairness should be able to get refunded.

When talking about DLC, most complaints are based around the interference it causes to those within the gaming world. Take for example Modern Warfare 2, the DLC divided those able to game together and still experience the same gaming experience by 3. Your friends were seperated from you in an attempt to force you to upgrade. Frankly I have no problem with DLC sales being based around astetics, but when it effects your interactions or in game competition it is disruptive to your experience. There are better ways to release new content and to make a profit than dividing up your players, i.e. Portal 2 DLC is free however it allows you to pay to alter appearances (something irrelevant to your experience of the game).

So all in all, there isn't really an argument for your statement about gamers being cheap.
Pirates are cheap, gamers are not.

 

[Sabiancym]

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.

How would it get worse?

$50 for a game that is good?
Or $100 for a game that gives you twice the gameplay and quality?

And that's bottom line. In good game dev houses, a doubling of the budget does not equal double the gameplay. It equals more.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

I remember reading something, possible even on this very site, that explained that games should cost a hell of a lot more and explained exactly why they should cost so much more. A lot of it of course came down to store markups, and if stores didn't demand such a massive price just to stock the thing (which is why downloads cost quite so much less) then the whole indsutry would be healthier, but actually overall we should be paying a lot more than we are, especially for triple A titles like we like.

I generally think that people should remember that games are a privilege not a right, and just because you own a console does not mean that you automatically have some right to own games for the thing. They are all luxury items and if your budget honestly comes down to buying food or games and you seriously consider games first then you are a hopeless cause.

Grow up and realise that in this world if you want something nice you have to pay for it. Books have increased in price as well, but you don't see people whining about that, why? Because they understand that luxury items are just that, luxuries.

I think gaming as a whole needs to grow up, and this is probably the next step.

 

[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.

But how do you make more money? Not by charging more, but by selling more.

Also, note that the budget is not controlled by developers (unless they're indie) but by publishers. Publishers are usually not interested in making better games, they're interested in making more money. And they're not willing to gamble, they want a sure profit. That's why the biggest budgets usually belong to sequels.

I know, and I'm not saying there is unlimited room for an increase. But even a $10-15 increase would see a slight physical sales numbers decrease, but that would be more than made up by the extra revenue from the increase in price.

 

[savandicus]

Spoiler: Snip

The analogy of playing a game vs a movie, doesn't always stack up. When a movie is released, it will do so in a complete state, (barring the occasional director's cut, which are additions to an already complete story). The thing about video games that is particularly galling is that if you do buy on release day, you pay a premium price for an inferior product that someone who waits several months to buy at a discount AND after all the attended fixes and patches are applied.

I do not believe that throwing money at the problem would necessarily solve that problem either. Once this problem was the province of PC gaming, but now with the advent of the consoles getting online, it has crept into that sector with alarming frequency. 10 years ago console games by definition HAD to release in a finished state or they would simply bomb, now developers can patch away problems later encourages this behaviour, and extra money has nothing to do with it, as games on the whole cost more now than they did then.

I've got to disagree with you here, I believe that the reason their are so many more bugs in games than their used to be is mostly to do with the increased complexity of games, although i'm sure the ability to patch does factor in alittle bit.

Take a game from 10 years or so ago, it was only about 100 mb worth of data in total, these days even small games are 1 gb or more. There is so much more code and so much more complexity in games that means that it is much harder to find all the bugs.

 

[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.

My apoligies, I seem to have misunderstood your point, and I'm glad you agree.

Nah that was my bad, I didn't express what I wanted to say properly haha, I can see why it could have easily been mistaken. Unfortunately its an opinion that means nothing since you can't base a games cost off of its quality since every game is subjective, theres probably someone out there willing to pay top dollar for Stalin vs. The Martians haha. You just have to wait and pay what you feel is an amount you are willing to pay when the price drops.

 

[Arehexes]

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.

No the question is what is your problem, because with a line like this

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.

You sound like a spoiler brat so excuse us, but I don't think he was flaming you (Because your attitude makes us think your a spoiled kid). So here is my question if I dump 1,000,000USD at a company and tell them I want a game that renders the world (the whole world) in 1080P in real time 3D graphics with every structure the world has on the Wii could it be possible? The answer is NO because the tech wouldn't allow it. And games more or less cost the same as they did 10 years ago sir.

 

[Arehexes]

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.

How would it get worse?

$50 for a game that is good?
Or $100 for a game that gives you twice the gameplay and quality?

And that's bottom line. In good game dev houses, a doubling of the budget does not equal double the gameplay. It equals more.

But most devs don't set a budget it's the publisher unless they are indie

 

[Zhukov]

If big games were $80, the quality and depth would skyrocket. These developers would have more money to invest into technology and developers and that equals a better product.

I would be more than willing to pay $100 for a game if it led to a dramatic increase in gaming technology and depth. Considering an hour and thirty minute movie costs $8 around here, a 20+ hour game at $100 is a good deal. Especially when you add the hundreds of hours of online gameplay.

Okay, this is where your argument falls to bits.

If publishers could sell games of the current quality for $80 then... well, that's exactly what they would do. They wouldn't have any reason to suddenly start putting out better games.

Also, I assume you're talking in US dollars. Because here is Australia we already pay $80 for our games (and bear in mind that the AUD is equal to the USD at the moment). Hell, sometimes we pay more than that, a new PS3 game costs $110 AUD if you buy retail.

And, y'know, the huge prices haven't spontaneously caused games to increase in quality. Funny that.

Basically, they're out to screw us for as much money as possible. We have to screw back. It's unfortunate, but that's how capitalism works.

 

[RoBi3.0]

Games are too expensive. That's pretty much fact.
The only reason developers don't make a huge increase is because a majority of sales go into used games. Make it illegal for retailers to sell used products from their initial distributors, and that will be solved.

No thank you.

For one the government (USA) has a hard time paying its bills now without have to front the costs for monitoring and enforcing such a law.

Second, it is none of the governments business what I do with property that I have bought and paid for and that is rightfully mine to do with what I please.

Third, video games as have been pointed out are one of the most cost effective forms of entertainment on the market today.

The game industry needs to build long lasting value into game if they don't like the resale market. Or make it more appealing to buy new. Project 10 dollar is a wonderful program IMO, because it encourages people to buy new but doesn't force them to. I think people appreciate having a choice.

Further more I would venture a guess that killing the used game market will drive up piracy. at least with the used market through "project $10" plans the industry can make some money on it. The Industry makes on money on piracy.

The current costs of games is just fine. Simply throwing out money isn't going to automatically lead to better games. What will lead to better games is not buying the crappy ones. I am not really sure why the OP feels the game industry in such trouble the the only way to save it is boosting the price of games. Video games is a billion dollar business. The industry is making money hand over fist.

 

[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.

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.

Would I pay $200 for a game? You're right, that is a no brainer. No. I don't care how long it lasts. Did I mention I'm an unemployed student? $200 is a weeks pay for me. And seriously, how many games are twice as long as their previous instalment without a console generation jump? And the cost-to-enjoyment ratio is bullshit. Enjoyment is fluid, depending on the person and how much they enjoy the game itself, what their mood is at time of playing, whether they gfet to play uninterrupted, whether their console isn't being buggy, how good their connection is for online play, how the other people playing behave during online play, if their tv and sound system do the games audio and visuals justice, and so on. And then the time, it depends on if they prefer to work through the side missions and such or just go through the main campaign. How long was Fallout 3? OH so long, so many hours of gameplay in that. Unless of course you jsut stick to the core mission, in which case it was like five and a half minutes, six tops.

 

[Arehexes]

I remember reading something, possible even on this very site, that explained that games should cost a hell of a lot more and explained exactly why they should cost so much more. A lot of it of course came down to store markups, and if stores didn't demand such a massive price just to stock the thing (which is why downloads cost quite so much less) then the whole indsutry would be healthier, but actually overall we should be paying a lot more than we are, especially for triple A titles like we like.

I generally think that people should remember that games are a privilege not a right, and just because you own a console does not mean that you automatically have some right to own games for the thing. They are all luxury items and if your budget honestly comes down to buying food or games and you seriously consider games first then you are a hopeless cause.

Grow up and realise that in this world if you want something nice you have to pay for it. Books have increased in price as well, but you don't see people whining about that, why? Because they understand that luxury items are just that, luxuries.

I think gaming as a whole needs to grow up, and this is probably the next step.

I would agree but downloads don't cost less

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Portal+2+-+Mac/Windows/2146696.p?id=1218311139568&skuId=2146696&st=portal%202&lp=3&cp=1

http://store.steampowered.com/app/620/

And gaming is not a right, so is driving. I say we raise gas prices so we can have oil companies make better fuel, it only makes since right?

 

[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.

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

I never said tech has nothing to do with it. I said it doesn't have everything to do with it like someone else said.

And what the heck does that last sentence mean? When you your self said what?


I'm done responding to you. You're starting to get hostile.

 

[Arehexes]

Games are too expensive. That's pretty much fact.
The only reason developers don't make a huge increase is because a majority of sales go into used games. Make it illegal for retailers to sell used products from their initial distributors, and that will be solved.

No thank you.

For one the government (USA) has a hard time paying its bills now without have to front the costs for monitoring and enforcing such a law.

Second, it is none of the governments business what I do with property that I have bought and paid for and that is rightfully mine to do with what I please.

Third, video games as have been pointed out are one of the most cost effective forms of entertainment on the market today.

The game industry needs to build long lasting value into game if they don't like the resale market. Or make it more appealing to buy new. Project 10 dollar is a wonderful program IMO, because it encourages people to buy new but doesn't force them to. I think people appreciate having a choice.

Further more I would venture a guess that killing the used game market will drive up piracy. at least with the used market through "project $10" plans the industry can make some money on it. The Industry makes on money on piracy.

The current costs of games is just fine. Simply throwing out money isn't going to automatically lead to better games. What will lead to better games is not buying the crappy ones. I am not really sure why the OP feels the game industry in such trouble the the only way to save it is boosting the price of games. Video games is a billion dollar business. The industry is making money hand over fist.

I can't agree with you on project $10 because I feel it does force you into it. A game like Need for Speed Hot Pursuit boasts it's social network like system to play with others, if you don't buy it new you can't get that feature. Kinda sounds like your being forced if you ask me. But besides that I agree with you

 

[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.

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.

My apoligies, I seem to have misunderstood your point, and I'm glad you agree.

Nah that was my bad, I didn't express what I wanted to say properly haha, I can see why it could have easily been mistaken. Unfortunately its an opinion that means nothing since you can't base a games cost off of its quality since every game is subjective, theres probably someone out there willing to pay top dollar for Stalin vs. The Martians haha. You just have to wait and pay what you feel is an amount you are willing to pay when the price drops.

I think that if you think Stalin vs. The Martians is worth your money, you should probably invest in a lobotemy first.
Ps. Please excuse my poor English, I am not a native speaker.

 

[Weaver]

I think most of you are just posting your sticker shock reaction instead of actually thinking it out. I figured that would happen.

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.

Where is the proof that game companies will continue to churn out exactly the same game at $80 that they would for $60? It's simply not true. Maybe a few companies would churn out crap, but that already happens.

At $80, the average quality of gaming would go up, considerably. Stop using games and genres you don't like as an example. You're never going to like those games. Use a game you really enjoy, and now imagine what that game would be like if the company had 140% of their current budget.



It doesn't even matter if you agree with me. The cost of games are already going up. DLC is making companies millions, and because of that you'll see (and are already seeing) better and better games. Better being relative of course.

You're assuming that customers would just eat up the $20 price hike and would blindly buy the game. If you increase the price this much you have to expect you will lose customers.