Why are gamers so cheap? Should games cost more?

[EvilPicnic]

Gamers are not cheap. They are the opposite.

Games do cost a lot, and there is a massive markup. The comparison to film is flawed because the markets are different, but if you were to compare a film studio to a game studio, they currently actually have similarly large teams working similar hours and spending similar amounts (on different things, naturally, games don't need high-profile actors). Yet to see a film and then to buy a DVD still costs a fraction of as much as buying a game. And then there's dlc. And then paying for xbox live. And then paying for the game again in 10 years time on xbla...

Games cost so much because people buy them at that price. If the market was more choosy (i.e. not buying the latest release just because it's a new release but based on quality) less people would buy games and the prices would drop. But not necessarily the manufacturers relative profits, because lower prices --> more people buying --> potential profit.

Game companies get away with this because a) they aggressively market their product so you have to buy it straight away (notice how prices drop by about a half a few months after release? That's much they really value their product) and b) they currently market their product at teens still living with their parents. It's the parents who buy the majority of games, not the actual consumers of the product, and this allows the company to exert more pressure. Unfortunately, those prices then get passed on to us consumers with limited means.

They're ripping us off, man, and you're one of the sheep who let them.

 

[Paularius]

This is kind of funny as i've just gotten back from the shops today where i baught Witcher 2 for ?40. Was thinking on the fact games were getting cheaper. Even DA2 I got soverign edition for ?40.

Games are a very high profitable business and there was a point when they uped the price of games from ?50 - ?60 for CE. People had the money then to pay. Im sure someone probably said it before or will say it after and im sure someones rolling there eyes but theres been a resession on for a few years now and game prices never dropped. I know i stopped buying as many games as i used to. Its about time they got there heads screwed on right and realised they'd make a much larger profit by dropping the prices to an affordable ammount.

 

[Above]

Im really not bothered about the prices,if you like it,buy it,if you dont,dont.

 

[Arawn.Chernobog]

Maybe for Americans, I have to fork over 50-60? for a brand new game.

 

[Choppaduel]

They are cheap because there's an element of risk involved in buying games. People would have no trouble paying full price for a game they know they love, but they don't know that when they being asked for payment, ie before they even try out the game.

The solution to this is to give 4 hour full version demos, free for everyone.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

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.

Are you using the same XBLA I am?New releases costing half of what they do in-store?Really??In my experience it's the other way round with store bought games being cheaper than XBLA in the majority of cases.Here's an example

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-IE/Product/Fallout-New-Vegas/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d802425307e0 Fallout:New Vegas is ?49.99 on XBL.It cost me ?29.99 brand new in store

Well now I'm confused. I just went to check XBLA after being told this and for me Fallout: NV would cost £20 on XBLA, but in store new would cost me £40, and that's not the only game. I don't even have XBL Gold or anything. I should probably tell someone about that...

 

[Rensenhito]

Yes, gamers are cheap. This is because they're human.
No, games do not need to be more expensive. This would be inhuman.

 

[MetalDooley]

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.

Are you using the same XBLA I am?New releases costing half of what they do in-store?Really??In my experience it's the other way round with store bought games being cheaper than XBLA in the majority of cases.Here's an example

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-IE/Product/Fallout-New-Vegas/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d802425307e0 Fallout:New Vegas is ?49.99 on XBL.It cost me ?29.99 brand new in store

Well now I'm confused. I just went to check XBLA after being told this and for me Fallout: NV would cost £20 on XBLA, but in store new would cost me £40, and that's not the only game. I don't even have XBL Gold or anything. I should probably tell someone about that...

Hmmm seems people in the Eurozone are being royally ripped off.Just looked up the British xbox.com and New Vegas is £24.99 which works out at around ?29.Yet it's ?49.99 on the Irish,French and Spanish sites.That's why I never use that Games on Demand service.Virtually every game available on it can be bought cheaper in store here in Ireland(and significantly cheaper in a lot of cases)

Still if you're paying less than you should be good luck to you.I wouldn't say anything to anyone about it

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I'm not cheap by any stretch. I tend to buy the best gaming related hardware, for example the best geforce card of the generation, high quality, cordless, laser mice and decent keyboards, etc. But if activision for a second believe I'd even consider giving them £30-£40 for a rehashed, tired military shooter with less than 6 hours of SP campaign and £10 for a map pack they are sorely mistaken.

Truth be told, I'm not that keen on the way the games industry has moved toward the AAA, multi-mill development model. I won't deny that I thoroughly enjoyed BioShock or Mass Effect 2 for example, but I WISH we could get less massive blockbuster types and more cool, innovative, niche games. Thanks to EA, BioWare are now making mass-market appeal games which is totally unlike what they would have done before the takeover and it's tragic.

Oh and Sony selling the PS3 at a loss of $100 or more per unit had nothing to do with them wanting to try to do gamers a favour. A BBC program calculated that it COST Sony over $3 billion dollars US to put 41 million PS3s in peoples living rooms. Why? That's 41 million blu ray drives they've stealthily sold everyone, beating HDDVD in the HD format war. They take money from every single blu-ray film, game, blank media, player and recorder sold so their 3 bill investment is made in the hopes of profitting from their ownership of the new format du jour. Because of the console's popularity, Nintendo never sold the Wii at a loss. I have no idea about Microsoft.

 

[KissofKetchup]

This isn't a troll post to insult anyone, it's a genuine interest into why as a group, gamers tend to be very cheap when it comes to the cost of games and gaming equipment.

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.

You make some good points but your point about the amount paid versus content given can go either way. On one end of the spectrum you have Call of Duty which give you about four hours of content in single player. If the player only plays single player, then that's $15 per hour of entertainment versus the $5.33 that the movie gives you.

Yes I'm picking on COD, but hell Mirror's Edge, a game that I liked only had 4 hours of gameplay

 

[Kenami]

...because people don't like spending large sums of money if they can/should be able to avoid it? Not really a lot more that needs to be said than that really.

 

[w00tage]

Yes. Especially monthly MMO subs. Keeping the prices the same has caused pretty much everything bad about MMOs to happen, including bad/rehashed forumaic gameplay, RTMs, lack of development support - you name the problem, and it would be solved by even a slightly higher sub fee (19.99 or so).

 

[Mcupobob]

All consumers of any product are cheap, they will look for the best cost-to-quality ratio they can. Whats so wrong with that? I and most other people are just looking for the best bang for their buck thats how capitalism works.

 

[MetalDooley]

To be honest the Industry only has themselves to blame.Games have always been expensive.I remember paying around IR£40 for NES games 20 years ago which is roughly what I pay for games these days(IR£40 = ?50 roughly).Yet NES games were nowhere near as expensive to produce compared to modern games so it's pretty obvious that games were overpriced for a long time.Because games have always been seen as expensive there is no way the industry could significantly increase the price without turning off a lot of customers.If games back then had been reasonably priced,say £10-£15 each which is all a lot of them were worth,then the industry probably would have gotten away with increasing the price each gen leading to a scenario today where we would be paying more for games than we currently are

As an aside anyone remember the Neo Geo?Anyone know someone who actually owned one?Games for the Neo Geo averaged around $100 and yet apart from slightly better graphics they weren't a huge improvement on what was available at the time so the idea that increased price=increased quality isn't necessarily true.Plus I think it proved that people simply aren't willing to pay that much for games

 

[rob_simple]

Yep thats why I'm british and proud to buy second hand

Ditto, I hardly ever buy brand new games anymore. Even when I do, I've found a neat trick in HMV is to take it back saying you bought the wrong thing for your little brothers birthday and swap it for another game at the same price completely free then trade that one in when you're done and get money off another.

I swear to God, my little brother had so many birthdays last year, he was practically ten people.

 

[Bebus]

If big games were $80, the quality and depth would skyrocket.

False. If big games were $80 investors would be richer. We have seen over the last 20 years of 'uber capitalism' how increasing price does not automatically make for a better product. Especially in this industry where big name studios have a near monopoly.

 

[captainwolfos]

Games here in the UK can cost up to around £50, which is about the equivalent of $80. So yeah, I would say too expensive.

Not that I buy brand new games, anyway.