Why are gamers so cheap? Should games cost more?

[KeyMaster45]

I knew someone would bring up an FPS, but a hundred hours is nothing. MMO gamers do that in a month no problem.

And that's a hundred hours per month I could be spending on better things, like playing games I actually like, or working, or any of a myriad of other things. I don't like MMO games. I've never found an MMO I've found properly fun. They're grindfests.

And just cause you don't find MMO's fun doesn't mean the people who are pouring 100 hours a month into it don't. No you might not be getting your $15 worth every month playing X pay to play MMO but the guy sitting next to you who is enjoying the game enough to sink lots of time into it is.

Picking up an MMO is like picking up a hobby, if you don't like it then it's not for you. Those who do like it are more than content to continue on after you've stepped away and moved onto things you enjoy.

 

[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.

No I sure as hell wouldnt pay $200 for a game. You dont seem to understand that the cost per entertainment ratio has almost nothing at all to do with why most people complain. $200 is half a paycheck for some people, or their car insurance payment. That is a lot of money and most people who dont live in their mommys basement cant afford to just drop that on a game.

The same is true with a $50, I wouldnt pay twice that for a game even if it was twice as long. Especially not mass effect since I thought that was a terrible game.

The biggest issue is that people do not like to spend large amounts of money on something as simple as a game even if it has some amazing cost to entertainment ratio.

You really need to get it through your head that nobody really gives a shit about a cost to entertainment ratio, nobody is thinking that when they buy a game or do anything else. Especially since not all entertainment is equal.

Ok, so economic irrationality is why games cost what they do. I'll accept that. The fact that people can't/won't factor in the entertainment to cost ratio is more than likely why games cost what they do.

All I said is that if people were a bit more rational with their purchases and valuations, we'd have better games.

 

[Sabiancym]

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.

I didn't say it would be all at once.

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

Games should probably cost more, but game companies already have to deal with enough piracy and second hand sales as it is. Although if game devs could see their product sold for around 100 dollars, we would probably see higher quality games as players have to be more discriminating in their tastes.

 

[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.

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?

Maybe it's just the XBLA then but I recently bought Halo CE on XBLA for the equivalent of £15 when I bought it in store for £40, and every new release I can see on there I'd be getting for no more than about £20 vs the £40 of a store bought copy. My argument was based on my downloads all costing half of what I would pay for the physical copy, but then I don't use Steam so I admit my argument could be flawed in that respect.

And yes, petrol prices should go up, there's less petrol, more demand for it, and really we should either be paying a lot more for it or researching new methods of moving cars, but since it would take the death of every rich person over the age of about thirty for their to be such a radical change that one's not the same in discussion as a younger industry. Apples and oranges.

 

[pokepuke]

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.

Except it wouldn't at all and your conjecture is laughable.

They put however much money into it as they need to. There really is no indication that they would put all the extra money back into the game development in a meaningful way rather than their own pockets. Almost all console games carry the same price points, so why is it that some developers get more money to make the game?

Higher prices will mean less buyers, but keep ignoring that part and acting like what you said was really important to anything other than your manufactured vacuum. And frankly, your "modern economics" speeches above are laughable, and you just look silly. You have also completely ignored how good games actually get larger sales figures than bad games, and their price points remains higher for longer. How would you determine which games are "good", anyway? The market already does it for you.

Plenty of lower budget games are fantastic, so it is the makers that squander millions of dollars when they can't put out decent quality while on a huge budget. They are wasting our money; and what then? Should we get our money back? I doubt the CEO making 2 million dollars a year would sign off to that.

 

[Liquidus_Hime]

Replying to the OP:

I honestly think that companies would spend the extra money on anything but their pockets. Gamers are cheap because a lower quality game still costs $60 and pumping up costs would really change a thing, now development time costs alot of money, but why spend millions making a groundbreaking game when you can make a mediocre fps for a couple of bucks? In my own opinion, I think that if a company is going to charge me $70-$100 for a game, then it needs to be the BEST game they can make and they better support it like hell and grits.

I would pay only if the development teams would step there game up and put in the work. Take the CoD series (NOT bashing CoD) Say they didn't release MW3 this year and decided to work on it for another year and add more to it. Next year the game would be even more polished and they could add even more to it, plus there's still the DLCs that come out. They could lengthen the development time (spending more money) BUT they can feel free to charge me more if their game is as best as they can make it.

I say an hour per dollar so $110 = 110-120 solid hours of gameplay. Example: Oblivion; I LOVE the game and I STILL play it on my laptop and have for the last 5 years, I've also spent money of the console version and its DLCs and I'd do it tomorrow if the game broke. It quality at it best and that a 5 year old game, most games now don't have anywhere near that type of qaulity.

Basically from what I can see the equations go like this:

Developer + Time and effort = More money overall
Developer + little time and effort = Bad Game & shitty sells

They want to charge more money, lets see some games worth the $100 they charge for them.

 

[Arehexes]

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.

No I sure as hell wouldnt pay $200 for a game. You dont seem to understand that the cost per entertainment ratio has almost nothing at all to do with why most people complain. $200 is half a paycheck for some people, or their car insurance payment. That is a lot of money and most people who dont live in their mommys basement cant afford to just drop that on a game.

The same is true with a $50, I wouldnt pay twice that for a game even if it was twice as long. Especially not mass effect since I thought that was a terrible game.

The biggest issue is that people do not like to spend large amounts of money on something as simple as a game even if it has some amazing cost to entertainment ratio.

You really need to get it through your head that nobody really gives a shit about a cost to entertainment ratio, nobody is thinking that when they buy a game or do anything else. Especially since not all entertainment is equal.

Ok, so economic irrationality is why games cost what they do. I'll accept that. The fact that people can't/won't factor in the entertainment to cost ratio is more than likely why games cost what they do.

All I said is that if people were a bit more rational with their purchases and valuations, we'd have better games.

We might also have better games if people would stop blindly buying the crap. That and if devs listened to what the fans want.

 

[gphjr14]

Doesn't really matter if they should cost more since I buy used anyways. Uncharted 3 is the only game I plan on getting new this year. When you factor in DLC and 360 users having to pay for online it evens out, at least for me it does.

 

[plugav]

*snip*

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.

Well, I admit I'm no economist, so I can't argue the math here.

And I guess I shouldn't really care about what they charge for AAA games, since I already can't afford them before they go on sale.

 

[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?

Maybe it's just the XBLA then but I recently bought Halo CE on XBLA for the equivalent of £15 when I bought it in store for £40, and every new release I can see on there I'd be getting for no more than about £20 vs the £40 of a store bought copy. My argument was based on my downloads all costing half of what I would pay for the physical copy, but then I don't use Steam so I admit my argument could be flawed in that respect.

And yes, petrol prices should go up, there's less petrol, more demand for it, and really we should either be paying a lot more for it or researching new methods of moving cars, but since it would take the death of every rich person over the age of about thirty for their to be such a radical change that one's not the same in discussion as a younger industry. Apples and oranges.

When did you buy Halo at the store? And my point was most games that come out now cost the same with a download site or in store. I have never seen many games cheaper on a download site unless it was a sale or the MSRP dropped.

 

[Sgt. Dante]

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.

At about £6 per movie here it's barely bronze standard for entertainment.

to clarify;
1 hour - £1 = Gold Standard
1 hour - £2 = Silver Standard
1 hour - £3 = Bronze Standard.

So at £40 (the cost of most new games in the UK) If you get 20 hours out of it it's only a silver standard experience, and many new games can be beaten comfortably in that time. Very few games offer much more than that, unless they offer a huge game play experience or a comprehensive multiplayer.

TBH, only 2 games would be worth £100 in my books, (2 games with 100ish hours gameplay) Which are FFX and TF2.

 

[Sabiancym]

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.

What? Who said an $80 game would be exactly the same quality as they are now? That's not even close to what I said.

I said that in order for great games to be made, they should come with a higher price tag. I'm not proposing suddenly increasing the price of games being released in the next couple of months.

 

[katsabas]

Okay, you are setting forward a lot of points.

1) You are being waaaaay too generous with game developers. More money doesn't necessarily translate into better games. Neither would making games cost even more than they do today. Look at Final Fantasy XIV, Resident Evil 5, MGS 4 or Halo ODST.

2) I can't complain about MMOs cause I don't play them. Still, I have electric to pay, telephone and internet. Monthly membership to a game wouldn't do my wallet any good. I am used to paying once for buying a game and that's it. It is not cheap wanting to have light so you can study.

3) The reason DLC is a pain is because it is usually used immediately post-launch and sometimes even announced even before the game is out, mostly for titles that are lacking content (cough MVC3 cough cough). I didn't hear anyone complain about Undead Nightmare, Lair Of The Shadow Broker or Big Surf Island. That's because they were for titles already bursting with hours of content and people were happy to pay for more of that.

The examples you give are not the best. Of the people that own a car on this planet, only a handful of them upgrade their cars. Of course it is expensive. Same with booster packs for card games or miniatures. Instead, gaming is extremely widespread as a hobby when it comes to the groups it is intended for.

 

[Umberjon]

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.

That wasn't an insult and I didn't flame you. I just asked a question.
If you own a company (provided it is going well) you have a lot of money to spend and of course the high price isn't an issue for you.
But not all of us have a lot of money to throw out the window with a couple of games a month.

By the way, you only reacted to the not working thing, have you thought about the bit with the advertising?

 

[ultimateownage]

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.

No they shouldn't. Quality is subjective. It should cost the effort taken to put in it, plus the money needed to not go bankrupt.
And if they cost more, then the 20 hour games will still have just as bad a play time to cost ratio.

 

[Arehexes]

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.

What? Who said an $80 game would be exactly the same quality as they are now? That's not even close to what I said.

I said that in order for great games to be made, they should come with a higher price tag. I'm not proposing suddenly increasing the price of games being released in the next couple of months.

Corrected me if I'm wrong but aren't most devs is they have a publisher are paid before making a game. I believe it's a base pay + royalties but mostly it's the publish who gets the biggest cut (That's what the Infinity Ward thing was about if I recall). Also what will quilify as a "good game"? I bought Gears of Wars 2, and it can last forever with multiplayer and is very high in production values, but to me it's not that good of a game. I have more fun playing my DS then my consoles or PC so should I pay 60 dollars for a 30 dollar DS game because I feel it's better. See I hear you saying quality in a game but that's in the eye of the gamer now. I think Battlefield Bad Company 2 is more enjoyable then Call of Duty Black Ops, and how can you measure which one has "more" quality to warrant the high price tag. Should it be the user reviews, the pro reviews, the money dumped into it? There is no way to measure the quality to make a flat price all users have to pay. If I paid 100 USD for Gears Of War 2 because it's priced higher and was to be "better" and hated it (which I do honestly) I would feel ripped off.

 

[Sabiancym]

They want to charge more money, lets see some games worth the $100 they charge for them.

Exactly. Let's see them.


That's what no one is taking into account. Everyone thinks I'm proposing charging $80 for Call of Duty. That's not at all what I said. I said that in order to get some truly amazing games, we're going to need to pay more. There is never going to an epic RPG made that has hundreds or thousands of fully voiced AI characters each who have their own personalities and daily routines if they can only charge $50-60 for the game.

If we want that game to be made, we're going to have to pay more. No it won't happen overnight, it will be a gradual increase in quality and price, but staying at the same price point will only allow for technological advances. Things like design teams and grunt work will need extra revenue.

Tech can only go so far. In order to make a really great game you need to be able to pay people to go over ever square inch of the game.

 

[deth2munkies]

We are so cheap for one reason and one reason only: We started gaming as kids.

Sure, there are few and far between exceptions to the rule, but almost any gamer who plays something past Farmville or Angry Birds started playing as a kid who had very limited income, whether it be relying on an allowance or on birthday presents.

While our income grew, our conception of how much a game should cost did not, and with rising industry prices and the growing need to squeeze every dollar out of things that used to be free, people aren't happy.

 

[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.

That wasn't an insult and I didn't flame you. I just asked a question.
If you own a company (provided it is going well) you have a lot of money to spend and of course the high price isn't an issue for you.
But not all of us have a lot of money to throw out the window with a couple of games a month.

By the way, you only reacted to the not working thing, have you thought about the bit with the advertising?

Odds are he didn't =D, seems to be more insulted at people who doesn't want to agree with him and is acting hostile (I mean really if he said I'm hostile he is to saying what he said to your question lol). Oh yeah welcome to The Escapist Umberjon.