Why are gamers so cheap? Should games cost more?

[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.

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

Look I don't know anything about Need For Speed Hot Pursuit. What I was referring too was project $10 plans like the Cerberus code where if you bought ME2 new you got the code included. If you bought it used you had the option of buying the code as DLC. EA did some similar with DA: O. That was what I was referring. Buy new incentive plans that offer features that can not obtained any other way is a dick move and really does nothing to make money off the used market.

 

[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.

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.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Only charging enough to not go bankrupt? No for profit business in the world has that policy.

 

[Harbinger_]

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.

When console games went from $50 to $60, you had petitions, swearing off gaming, and people who actually sold their consoles simply because they had to pay an extra $10.

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.

DLC is constantly bashed by people not wanting to pay for extra content. Yet there are a ton of hobbies where extra things cost more. Booster packs for card games, parts for the car enthusiasts, etc.

Console makers tend to sell their consoles at a loss because they know gamers won't pay the extra $30-50 to cover their production costs. Yes they make it up in game sales and other avenues, but you know they would sell their consoles for more if they could.



So why is this? The average gamer age is high twenties to low thirties depending on which study you look at, so they should have enough money to drop on gaming, yet all I ever see are posts about people waiting to buy something until it's in the bargain bin. Or people demanding a game company reimburse them for some minor thing that really doesn't even effect their experience.


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.

To me unless the game has shown lots of replay value, has a long and in depth single player mode, is in an interesting world and seems slightly to completely different than other games I don't even consider buying it for 25 dollars much less anything above that.

This means that I have no interest of course in most first person shooters or sports games or RTS games. Also I avoid video games based on movies out of principal that it takes so much money to get the license that not alot of budget is left for the game itself. If the game is a sequel or prequel to a game that I wasn't interested in I avoid that as well.

 

[Arehexes]

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.

And if it is raised in price for lets say 90USD how do we know that everyone will love it. You can't really measure quality to a price point, I mean we can have a game cost 100USD but that doesn't mean it will be great. Could you explain that?

 

[idarkphoenixi]

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.

No...Just no. If big games cost that much they would be EXACTLY the same, and the extra profit would go simply go directly into the pockets of the CEO's etc...

The fact of the matter is that games are expensive now, and if gamers didn't stand up for themselves when a developer tries to milk them for that little bit extra theres no telling where we would end up.

You need to understand that most developers don't really care about the quality of their product, its a business and they want money. Making an epic game with everything someone could ever want is one way. But its so much easier to take the more direct route and simply find ways to charge people more for what they're used to now. Its far more cost effective.
DLC and "special editions" seems to be the primary methods and people should NOT pay for those because in most cases its nothing short of a scam.

 

[Pirate1019]

It's just that the best games should cost more to increase the quality.

You're funny. This is funny. I smell massive bias and am starting to suspect that it's slanting your ability to understand reason.

"So with the extra profit from MSRP'ing our last game at $80, we have like 30 jillion extra dollars to spend on our next game. What should we do? We could tweak the game engine to increase performance, hire better voice actors next time, or develop some prototypes for new and interesting games that people haven't played before."

"Or we could set aside 10% and tell the code monkeys to stuff more gigapixels into our next Call of Duty clone and go take a vacation in the Bahamas."

 

[the D0rk One]

No, they complain because they are jaded and comparing the game to the best of the best.

Now see, this is bullshit. Imho.

Some prick said this a while ago, during a war between "retro" and contemporary gamers. And most people picked it up and believed it without trying to think it through.

This statement only does harm to the industry and to those few devs who genuinely want to make great games.

Seeing the difference between Wolfenstein 3D and Halo gameplay is not being jaded, nor is it not adapting to trends. It's a gamer feeling entitled to tell devs he apreciated health bars and extra lives, levels designed to house this kind of gameplay, and not being afraid of a chalenge and/or being shown he's wrong sometimes.

I'm not saying Halo is shit and it didn't add nothing to video games, I'm just saying it's a new concept which, in my eyes, has it pros and cons when compared against the "old school shooters".

I'm old enough to have experienced almost the whole of it, from 8-bit to HD, from Wolfenstein 3D to CoD:BO, from Ultima (1) to DA2.

I give them all credit, as much as I, the gamer, sees fit.

It is true that some mediocre games released today are better than some mediocre games from the 16-bit era, but they are better only because they have the tech to look better. That's it. Tech evolved, tech priced dropped and any studio today can afford tech (and sometimes talent) which back in the day was affordable only to top-dog devs.

Sorry about the rant, but the Troll is hungry. Also, ignoring the Troll and its tantrums, I hope you'll prove me wrong and convince me I'm a jaded nostalgic blind to the gold plating on all current-gen mediocre games. No, really.

 

[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

 

[GraveeKing]

No point in paying extra, for what won't be improved. They don't NEED to improve it until they got completion - that's why progress is always so slow. The wii do a motion thingy, the xbox 360and ps3 follow - even though with all likeliness they could have released something a while back.
Truth be told, they make enough to make profit, and a little progress. If we paid them more they'd just make a little progress and a lot of profit.

I like the idea but the fact is - another reason why they should cost more, is quite simply the lifestyle of someone who buys a lot of game, if it was any pricier then they wouldn't be able to afford every game they want and company's are much happier of everyone getting their games rather than just 1.

And yeah I'm not an expert on the subject but really now - games are priced just right , about now - a 100 pounds is way too much to even consider - no matter how good the game is, for some that's all they earn in a week and really cannot afford it as it is.

 

[David Bray]

£40 for a game compared to any other medium is nonsense. Some are only 6 hours long.

I can get a 24 hour tv series for half that.

No, they should not cost more. The price they are is a joke and offensive when they release a game intended for young children for that price.

 

[lukeyk]

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.

Css+ Garry's mod = £15 669.9 hours in Gmod alone and I know many people with more time than that. Then you have the fact that gmod has Roleplay and whatnot servers if you wanted them. Plus the reason I dislike the mmo costs are because they are a hassle. Rather than 1 payment straight up, I have to sort out paying each month and that's just long D: And I already have to sort my budget around my server (I own a garry's mod server <3) So it's more of a hassle than due to money stuff.

And DLC I have the mindset of why if you already have made the dlc... can you not just realease it with the game? Although I can understand some of the reasons I still just seems needless. And so I rarely will buy dlc's

 

[Ian Caronia]

Spoiler: Response 1

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.

Then you should find a way to word your thread's title so it doesn't immediately incite offense in those who read it.

When console games went from $50 to $60, you had petitions, swearing off gaming, and people who actually sold their consoles simply because they had to pay an extra $10.

Because it's ridiculous, especially when considering that games on the PC are still much cheaper than on the consoles. Why does Portal 2 get to be 50 for PC gamers and 60 for console gamers? What, because we don't have to physically update our hardware like PC gamers do we can be stiffed 10 bucks? It's bullshit.
$10 is a lot of money. Those ten dollars mean a simple date to the movies, a lunch for the day, MetroCard cash to go to work, etc. If you don't think so then you probably have more money than most (especially these days). Nothing wrong with that, but when games are becoming reliant on online multiplayer and now have campaigns that barely (if ever) scratch the 12hour mark, $10 is too damn much. It quickly adds up over time.

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.

You talking about expansion packs? I won't defend people who complain about those. Most often than not, expansion packs need to be and are carefully planned out and designed AFTER the release of the original game. It's not like it was made when the original came out and they're just selling it now to make more money.
Unless there is a case like that. In which case, it's horse crap.
_Aside from that, how does "people complain about MMOs" translate to "cheap"? It's the same as "JRPGs suck" comments. People are just asses/don't like the genre.

DLC is constantly bashed by people not wanting to pay for extra content. Yet there are a ton of hobbies where extra things cost more. Booster packs for card games, parts for the car enthusiasts, etc.

Okay, firstly this is silly. Booster packs are equivalent to expansion packs from what I understand, and as for model cars and such I'm pretty sure those come with everything that's needed when you buy them, and a lot come with extra accessories to deck out the model too.

Games? I'm paying 60+ for the bare bones of a game, if even that. Some DLC is story related and IS MADE WHEN THE GAME IS MADE, which is BULLSHIT since it SHOULD be IN THE GAME ON RELEASE. Other things like fluff content to make the game replayable is also made when the game is made and often released when the game is...FOR AN EXTRA PRICE.
_DLC that is complained about isn't the same as an expansion pack or something that required effort and time to make. RDR's zombie story DLC isn't complained about because that took a long time to make aside from the main game. The PS3's extra case for LA Noire (the game isn't French so why is it spelled it a friggin E?!) is literally free, but needs to be downloaded. ...Why? Why not put it into the fucking disc then? It's already different from the 360 disk(s). There's no excuse for being that lazy!
_Also companies use release day DLC to herd consumers to different sellers. Gamestop has a special DLC. Amazon has a special DLC. Yet, in reality, that should already be on the disc since it's made when the game is made, shouldn't it?

...Also the cost of DLC is stupid. 10 bucks for 5hours of content? Why not buy an indie game for cheaper? Fuck you EA.

Console makers tend to sell their consoles at a loss because they know gamers won't pay the extra $30-50 to cover their production costs. Yes they make it up in game sales and other avenues, but you know they would sell their consoles for more if they could.

...So? Not to be rude here, but what does this have to do with your topic? Console makers lose money, but make it up in the end, and are greedy bastards that would love to sell at higher prices. I guess I can agree, though I wonder what the point of stating this is, mate.

Spoiler: Response 2

So why is this? The average gamer age is high twenties to low thirties depending on which study you look at, so they should have enough money to drop on gaming, yet all I ever see are posts about people waiting to buy something until it's in the bargain bin. Or people demanding a game company reimburse them for some minor thing that really doesn't even effect their experience.

=_=
...I'm twenty one. I live in New York City and have no job or health insurance of my own. Both of my parents are addicts and I have Ulcerative Colitis, an extremely costly disease which demands I pay 40+ dollars on just getting the meds I need to survive (and that's off the health insurance my ma has from her job...which she is at risk of losing).
_The point of this sob story? I'm not in the minority. The econimy is SHIIIIIT. Ulcerative Colitis and other diseases that require expensive medication is not that rare. Having addicts as family members is (especially thanks to this economy and the SHIIIIIT job market) is also somewhat common.
Why do I complain about game and DLC prices? Because I can use that extra 10 dollars per game to help myself live. And don't start a "then why are you buying games if you're in the shitter" speech. Have you lived with addicts? Have you lived with a disease? Have you lived jobless? Escapism is paramount for sanity. Not a lot, but enough to make sure you don't slaughter everyone on your block in a grotesque mental breakdown.

I'm sure you're not being an asshole here, mate, but DO NOT EVER generalize the income of an individual and their ability to pay a lot for a little to their age. It's a type of prejudice.
...And if anything older individuals would have an easier time paying more since by then they'd hopefully have a job and be more stable than someone trying to get out in the world and get their own life (such is 20's age range). But even then you can't generalize, because they'd also probably have a family to keep safe, feed, and keep happy along with themselves.
Don't pay attention to "studies". 90% percent of them are as bullshit as statements made by people who use percentages. ....Wait-

Spoiler: Response 3

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,

What? Wait, what? Where the hell do you live, and where's the real estate listing?

a 20+ hour game at $100 is a good deal. Especially when you add the hundreds of hours of online gameplay.

STOP. RELYING. ON. MULTIPLAYER!! A game is meant to be more than that! What about people who don't have a lot of friends or a good internet access or just don't like playing online? They are stuck with 7hrs of gameplay for their 60+ dollars! Does no one else see this point?

And, might I add, that I think your idea of "20+hrs for $100 = Good deal" is as insane as "4hr movie (maybe LODR or Inception, which felt 4hrs) for $100 = Good Deal". Cost should not have to be dictated by quality.

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

Then, again, you should've worded your thoughts clearer and better as to avoid offending people.
And you are in the minority, but I don't hate you. I just think you need to look outside the walls of your thought process at the situations of those around you. It's one thing to try and excuse piracy, which is silly, but it's another to label people as "cheap" for being bitter about the high price of things. You wouldn't call the average driver "cheap" for complaining about the stupid high gas price, would you?

 

[Gindil]

Why is everyone thinking the price should be increased?

It should be the other way around. You've already made the game as good as it can get. It's in gold. It's now a fixed cost. If you want people to play on your servers, check out new content, you want the game to be cheaper, not more expensive!

When SSFIV came out, they chose the $40 price mark and made a killing on the game. There's now so many PS3 games the price should be cheaper on the older games. That's not something that's going away. If developers want to compete, the price ought to have been universally $40 a long time ago.

 

[RanD00M]

Fuck that noise. Games here already cost upward to around a $150 for the newest games and $130 for games that have been out 6 months. I don't often buy console games, but when I do, I buy them at discounts or used. Except for the occasional title that I will still buy new.

 

[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.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Only charging enough to not go bankrupt? No for profit business in the world has that policy.

I meant not going bankrupt through running out of money when developing other games. The money should go to the cost of making the game and future games, and not to line people's wallets. Which it currently does.

 

[KarlMonster]

Console makers tend to sell their consoles at a loss because they know gamers won't pay the extra $30-50 to cover their production costs. ... The average gamer age is high twenties to low thirties depending on which study you look at, so they should have enough money to drop on gaming, yet all I ever see are posts about people waiting to buy something until it's in the bargain bin. ...

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.

Nintendo games were at least $50. N64 games were the same. PS1, PS2 and Xbox games were all $50. The cost of games has remained stable. If anything, it's due for an increase. Look at the cost of everything else over that same time frame. They've all increased dramatically.

Hear! Hear! Well spoken Bruce! The central problems of game costs have always gone like this: the primary market for videogames are kids, and kids generally don't have jobs. As a kid, I sure thought that Commodore 64 games were expensive, and when the FREAKING disc drive finally came out, it was like $300!! (I don't remember very well, but it was a stinking lot of cash)

I'm going to say that videogames ARE too expensive right now, and I'll tell you why. While its true that game prices have stayed relatively flat (I guess, anyone have real figures?), game distribution, and the relative size of the game market has exploded - in a manner worthy of whatever jackass came up with the idea of "shock and awe". C64 games had poor distribution, and an equally small market. If there is a kid on the block who does not have the new generation XBOX, odds are that most of his friends do, and he just goes to play it at their house. This isn't proof that development costs are higher, its proof that marketing and distribution have improved, and the number of copies of games sold keeps going up.

Yes, games are more complex now, requiring more development time. Yes, a good game is expected to provide a certain number of hours of "quality entertainment," requiring yet more development time. Yes, the actual developers are the low men on the totem pole with the publisher soaking up most of the dough (Activision reported $2.3 million profit last year, and $1.9 million in the previous year, but they can spend a LOT of money in-house on salaries and marketing to keep those profit numbers down). Modern corporate publisher wisdom is to have multiple developers working at once, and staggering their release dates to keep the revenue stream comfortably away from a slow boom-bust cycle, which means that everyone gets paid, no matter how long its been since the last release. [See also iD Games sale to Zenimax, etc etc etc]

Rather than game costs being flat, most of my above (poorly presented) reasons should ALREADY have conspired to push game prices down.

Lets look at the other side. VALVe allowed Counter-Strike to generally be sold for free (depending on how you aquired it). A set-the-world-on-fire extra-massively multiplayer FPS. Anyone with a PC can host a game server. Anyone can make maps. A handful of Ahr-teests like Nipper(over 500 maps!) and 3D Mike become moderately famous for creating maps that rival, and even exceed the maps that VALVe themselves created. Then, for those of you who missed it, VALVe continued to update and patch the game for several years. A game for which they were getting very little in the way of revenue until Counter-Strike Source was released. As a person who wasted many exciting moments playing CS, maybe that spoiled me. I would fully admit to that. You do have to admit that it set a high bar for cost per value. So why the hell should I drop $60 for the next military-style FPS multipalsyer with a tiny and disappointing single player campaign? Many indie titles have release prices of $10-15. Depending on the title, you could argue that the indies are giving you better value.

Your statement about willingness to pay $100 if innovation was involved rings hollow. First of all, the cost does nothing to imply innovation. The innovations that I see at the moment are mostly desperate attempts to keep up with the explosion of amateur game modders. One case in point; fully destructible environments, introduced with Volition's Red Faction - 10 YEARS AGO!!! Game modders are generally limited by the capabilities of the game engines that they are working with; if the engine doesn't let things go boom, the game modders usually can't change that. So fully destructible environments became available only at the glacial pace of the sausage factory developers and publishers.

I'm not trying to bash on you. Not in the slightest. I would love to find an open-world game that could keep my interest and be different enough on each play to keep me enthralled, creeping through the environment goggle-eyed. Fallout 3 came really close to doing this - but they made the game too easy. I'm playing a S.T.A.L.K.E.R. mod right now with an game world about twice the size of the largest retail Stalker game, plus weapon mods, plus mission, plus monsters, plus everything. Stalker fans are generally expecting Stalker 2 to be a console port - in which case I won't touch it. Stalker modders are taking a hard look at the new game engines (Cryengine, etc) and their efforts could seriously affect the future of Stalker mods, and other games in general.

How important are amateur-created game modifications to innovation? A freeware Half Life modification called "They Hunger" introduced at least one set-piece and other game elements that were incorporated into Half Life 2 and DOOM 3. I was pretty darn impressed.

Now if you'll excuse me, Fallout:New Vegas is $9.99 on Steam.
EDIT: My bad, thats just DLC. I thought it was too soon for FNV to be that cheap.

 

[Sylveria]

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.

Here's the thing. Even if games were running $100 a pop, we'd still be getting Kain and Lynch. Square Enix and all his bar buddies would happily charge you $100 for 4 hours of game play if they thought they could get away with it. Or, they'd give you games that were 20hours of time wasting cutscenes and no game play *cough FF13 cough*. Really, how many $60 games run 20hrs of truly enjoyable playtime anymore? Sure you can say "It has mmultiplayer" but you're paying extra for that to in most cases. As far as MMOs, yeah, they're a fantastic cost:time relation; ~2cents an hour for your average $15 a month sub. But how many people play only 1 MMO and do no other form of entertainment? And for every hour you're not playing, you're getting less for your money. So fuck sleep, play WoW 24/7 cause it has the best cost:reward ratio. Consoles? Consoles are bloody expensive.

You're looking at this purely from a cost:time standpoint which is horribly flawed and makes me believe you buy piles and piles of over-priced, shit games, and then act in defense of the companies when the game is broken, overpriced, or just plain bad, thus making you the figurehead for a major problem within the industry.

I really don't know how spoiled or entitled you are that you can sit here, straight faced, and say "$60 games and $400 consoles are cheap and yeah throw in some $10+ of DLC " but those of us who don't have our parents buying our shit for us, who have college loans and other bills to pay, or work crappy jobs and just barely get by don't have that kind of money to throw around willy-nilly.

You say you're not trolling, but I kinda wish you were since if you aren't you kinda sicken me.

 

[Brandon237]

First: Many gamers are not yet in well-paying jobs.
Second: Games are already expensive, if I buy a game that is crap, I lose (roughly translated) $50. If it is a book or a DVD, it is normally less than half that. And for a movie with my medical aid I pay NOTHING.
And so many games just don't deliver like they should, replay value and originality are dead these days. Paying anything over $30 for them is just so risky.

And For me personally, 3rd world country. And my parents are paying an assistant in our business a huge salary. Money isn't tight, but we sure as hell can't spend $100 on every bloody game, or even on 1/3 games. That equates to around R800 (rands) here, to pay that for a game would be INSANE.

 

[Gunner 51]

I don't think it's gamers being cheap, it's just gamers being reluctant to spend forty quid because somewhere in the back of their minds - they fear / know that the game will only really be worth twenty quid to them.

 

[KarlMonster]

You say you're not trolling, but I kinda wish you were since if you aren't you kinda sicken me.

That's a little harsh. Give some credit for trying to explore a topic that is worth exploring. More people need to realize that games are too expensive, and fail to deliver cost-appropriate value or innovation.

Personally, I'd like to try Brink... but not for crazy dollars and insane cents.