Why are gamers so cheap? Should games cost more?

[Fanboy]

The bigger the cost, the bigger the risk.

If a game developer takes twice as long to develop a game using twice the budget and charges twice the price, they are essentially taking twice the risk. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, etc.

The same goes for the customer; Spending twice as much on a game does not mean I am any more likely to enjoy it, but it does mean I lose twice as much if I don't enjoy it.

 

[SamielUK]

I would almost be tempted to agree with the op, but for one simple fact: bugs and instability. I have been buying video games for years, most often on release day. However I have reduced that massively this year as I have been sick and tired of game released in a terrible state.

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.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

I'm not saying being economically aware is a bad thing, but I just wonder what this industry would be like if gamers were a bit more willing to spend. 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.


I'm sure I'm in the minority here, and will probably get some hate for this post.

Nope. They won't make the games better. People will still buy the same FPS they've been making for years now. There are games with great depth and long stories that are out right now. If they wanted to do that with every game, the have the resources now. However, unique games aren't a guaranteed money maker at any price. A price increase would mean people wouldn't take a chance on strange or non-AAA titles.

 

[Arehexes]

snip

Most gamers can't afford that every month (luckily there aren't so many new releases), so when they give up something to buy a game and it turns out less than they expected... well... they feel they got ripped off (not saying they should, but that's another discussion).

And of course, there are the Trolls, professional and amateur, doing it for the sake of it or for the sake of someone or something else.

That's the whole point of the thread. More money for the developers would mean considerably better games. Not everytime, but generally.

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.

No it's only due to technology, games back then cost 50 to even 100 USD (I think Chrono Trigger was 80 USD for the SNES). Atari games cost a good chunk a change and devs had to build a game from scratch there was no such thing as reusing the assets from another project. It seems to me you have this stupid idea that if you throw more money at it, it has to get better. Well that isn't always true, if you throw money at gaming companies they are limited by the tech and to be honest the only thing holding them back no a days is making better graphics with reasonable loading times. We have more then enough space and memory for all the fancy game play ideas you can think of, it's just storing the HD graphics now a days is a big issue.

 

[Sabiancym]

Come to australia. All games new are minimum $90 and I think MW2 came out at $110-120

That has nothing to do with publishers and more to do with global economics. Australian publishers buy their games from the head office and in that head office's currency. So they are paying for games in Euros or USDs instead of AUD. That adds a cost. Then you have the cost of transportation. Australia is far away from where most games are produced. Then you have the cost to edit the games to fit Australia's ridiculous censorship and you can easily see how a game can cost $100.

Actually paying more for games might make your's cheaper. Companies would be able to expand further and would probably put more effort into the Australian market. Being able to produce the games in multiple countries (including Australia) would drop the price.

 

[DEAD34345]

No...

If that were true the cost to produce games would not be going up, yet it is. The more money these companies make, the more money they put into games. Do you think that the last Call of Duty games cost exactly the same to make as the previous ones? Of course not, it cost considerably more because they had all the money from the sales of the previous.

It takes money to make money.

The cost of producing games is going up because to remain competitive they have to. The companies are doing this only because they know they have to to continue making money, not because they are earning more money and therefore can do so. If everyone suddenly decided they would happily pay more for their games they would happily just have increased profits with no game improvements if they could get away with it. Luckily, gamers won't pay more and so they won't have a chance to get away with it.

Also, Call of duty was a terrible example that pretty much just proves my point...

errr....the last few call of duty games seem to run on the same engine if you ask me, just updated. And with 2 years for a company to update a already in place engine it doesn't seem to hard. Also look at the EA Sport games, they are more of less the same game every year. Same of Halo 3 and it's engine which is also used in ODST and Reach. It is more or less the same game with added stuff. Not every game is made from scratch unless the company wants it's own engine to forgo buying one, but even then they can just reuse and save. But no raising the cost of a game won't improve any thing. And the only reason the cost to produce a game is going up is to give a game those high res graphics everyone wants games to have now.

Arehexes puts it better than I could.

 

[Dorian_Winter]

Move to Aus. Pay more. Get the same as everyone else. It doesn't make you feel better.

 

[Torrasque]

Throw in the fact that I like to eat out at least once a week, buy lunch at work almost every day, go see alot of movies when they come out, and pay for my various annoying bills, an extra $10 for each game I buy, is like an extra $2 on my movie tickets, or an extra $8 on my monthly phone bill. That shit adds up really quickly, and if I am not getting any extra benefits to my games, they are simply the old games but cost more, then I will rage.

 

[ZombieGenesis]

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.

 

[Rednog]

In my personal opinion I think it is just an illusion that gamers just have to get used to. The problem tends to crop up because video game companies tend to release games in waves. The 'AAA' titles tend to release around october-november and around febuary. This is a really odd thing because your average person has their budget on their minds with the upcomming season so I think most people are like oh crap I'm dropping $60 on a game now when I have to drop a lot of money on presents. And after the holidays their wallets their wallets have taken a beating and aren't ready to fund the second wave on games. I personally don't know why developers don't stagnate their games. Seriously if people spent like $60 or every month or even 2 I think less people would complain, the complaining happens in periods when there are like 2,3, or even 4 games released very close together and you just feel that pinch on your wallet.
Like this summer the only game on my personal radar is FEAR3 right in the beginning of summer and gears of war 3 at the end of the summer, what about the middle? And then right around November my wallet is going to take a beating with BF3, MW3, and I few other games I'm sure that will come out.

 

[RuralGamer]

MMOs constantly get hated on by a group of gamers, yet they are a considerably better deal if you look at the cost to gameplay hour ratio. Very few people play one non-mmo game for years. If you buy one game every 3-4 months, it's exactly the same cost as an mmo.

I've been playing ARMA 2 since its release in 2009; I've clocked up at least one hundred hours in the game and its expansion pack. That sounds to me like a pretty damned good gameplay-to-cost ratio, particularly as there's more gameplay in there. When ARMA 3 (announced just half-an-hour ago!) is released, I reckon the same deal will apply there. I frequently buy games which give me dozens of hours of play time.

Similar story here; 150 hours on Dawn of War 2. Even better; I paid £17 for Oblivion and have probably clocked up 400+ hours; still playing it too once in a while.

OT: I think it depends on the game; some games are worth £40/$60 and some aren't; I wouldn't pay that much for a lot of games, yet I'd have to say that Fallout 3 or Oblivion could, in my opinion, be sold for 50% more and still be worth it because of the amount of replay value and time spent to finish them. I hate how 95% of new releases all cost the same amount; perhaps games shouldn't be all the same in terms of pricing, they should be priced on how long they will take too complete or something like that.

 

[Sabiancym]

snip

Most gamers can't afford that every month (luckily there aren't so many new releases), so when they give up something to buy a game and it turns out less than they expected... well... they feel they got ripped off (not saying they should, but that's another discussion).

And of course, there are the Trolls, professional and amateur, doing it for the sake of it or for the sake of someone or something else.

That's the whole point of the thread. More money for the developers would mean considerably better games. Not everytime, but generally.

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.

No it's only due to technology, games back then cost 50 to even 100 USD (I think Chrono Trigger was 80 USD for the SNES). Atari games cost a good chunk a change and devs had to build a game from scratch there was no such thing as reusing the assets from another project. It seems to me you have this stupid idea that if you throw more money at it, it has to get better. Well that isn't always true, if you throw money at gaming companies they are limited by the tech and to be honest the only thing holding them back no a days is making better graphics with reasonable loading times. We have more then enough space and memory for all the fancy game play ideas you can think of, it's just storing the HD graphics now a days is a big issue.

The most expensive games ever made where all done so in the past 5 years. By a lot. GTAIV cost 100 million to make. That's considerably more than the previous GTAs, and inflation alone would not account for that.

Rockstar has made a ton of money off the GTA franchise, every single one they make costs more than the last and in turn is more complex and detailed.

Technology alone is not the cause. It's blatantly obvious.

 

[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.

Er no from how you put it Atlus games would never be resold making them harder to find T_T. Also I really don't like that mind set of make it illegal to sell a used game. That means you can't sell a used game period then if we are going that route, not on e-bay not on amazon. And the same should go to movies also while we are at it.

Anyway I had another thought on the subject Gameboy Advance games cost about 30 bucks, The Nintendo DS which updates the tech still has games for 30 bucks but they are better then Gameboy Advance games. The reason from my understanding is there things:

A)More space for more assets (lie music and graphics and gameplay features)

B)The tech is better, making easy to pull of stunts you might had to use "tricks" to do before

C)The SDK for the hardware might be easier to work with compared to a older hardware (Like Phantom Hour Glass on the DS where you had to close the lid to make the map. No amount of money could add that to a GBA version due to the tech).

 

[AbstractStream]

Gamers aren't "cheap." It's just that "gaming" can really make a dent in your wallet. Let's say you buy 3-5 games (in a month), each being $50-$60. Without tax, that's already $150-250 or $180-300 (or many other combinations, point is it's a lot). That's enough money for some people's rent or utility bills.
Now, that example was just the extreme in the situation, but it's to paint a picture.
I actually know people who do this, and yes I find it ridiculous but no! I for one do not think games should cost more.
(Used or price cut anyone?)

If I hear raving reviews about a game, and try the demo out myself and actually see that it's worth the extra money, then fine. It just better be damn satisfying.

 

[the D0rk One]

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).

 

[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.

This is simply not true. For the most part, companies just want to spend as little as possible creating a product and sell it as high as possible while still getting sales. If gamers suddenly decided they were willing to pay $80 for games, the companies wouldn't spend this extra money on improving the games, they would simply have an increased profit margin. If people were willing to pay $80 for the same games, then we would get the same games at $80. There would be no improvement.

I'm glad gamers are cheap, it forces game companies to work for their money. I myself spend about half of my gaming time playing games that are completely free, and only spend money on games I know are going to be good. A lot of other gamers do this, and it leads to games that get good reviews and word of mouth doing well (usually), while others don't (usually). This improves the industry greatly, and means that games actually have to be good to do well.

No...

If that were true the cost to produce games would not be going up, yet it is. The more money these companies make, the more money they put into games. Do you think that the last Call of Duty games cost exactly the same to make as the previous ones? Of course not, it cost considerably more because they had all the money from the sales of the previous.

It takes money to make money.

errr....the last few call of duty games seem to run on the same engine if you ask me, just updated. And with 2 years for a company to update a already in place engine it doesn't seem to hard. Also look at the EA Sport games, they are more of less the same game every year. Same of Halo 3 and it's engine which is also used in ODST and Reach. It is more or less the same game with added stuff. Not every game is made from scratch unless the company wants it's own engine to forgo buying one, but even then they can just reuse and save. But no raising the cost of a game won't improve any thing. And the only reason the cost to produce a game is going up is to give a game those high res graphics everyone wants games to have now.

Modern Warfare 2 had a budget of 40-50 million. The head of Infity Ward Robert Bowling himself said that a higher budget makes a better game, and a better game makes more money for the company.


I don't know where you guys are getting the idea that these companies will just stockpile cash instead of using it to make more cash, but it's simply not true. No company out there to make money is going to not try to increase their profits by spending more.

 

[plugav]

Games being more expensive means less people buying them, while having a bigger budget means needing more people to buy. I don't think it would pay.

Also, note that developers are most creative when their budgets are limited, because: A) they have to work around the limitations; and B) a failed experiment won't cost them millions of dollars.

The head of Infity Ward Robert Bowling himself said that a higher budget makes a better game, and a better game makes more money for the company.

I'm afraid he was very, very wrong. Money doesn't make games, people do. Lots of money and no talent makes a failed game. And even if you make the game of your life, you might not sell a single copy if you don't market it right.

 

[thetruefallen]

Australia has possibly some of the most ridiculous price schemes for video games in the word. At the time I'm typing this the currency conversion is 1.00 AUD = 1.06455 USD. currency conversion was the line that Eb games always sold me about how much games in Australia cost compared to the rest of the world but now we have over taken the green-back. That wont hold water anymore. now they just tell me "that's just the way things are". bull. fucking. shit. I have started buying my games online just to show those retailer punks a lesson. Its very rarely significantly cheaper but its the only for of protest i have short of setting something on fire.