Fall and winter are coming, which inevitably means some big game releases are coming, which inevitably means some random people are going to once again start banging the "Oh my gawd, games cost so much why don't they understand most people can't afford $60 on a new game" drum. So I feel like getting this out in the open ahead of the game, so we know where we all stand when these landslides of shit and drivel start coming our way.
Yes, most games cost $60. We all know the breakdown: "That's 3 weeks of food!" "That's my cell phone bill!" "That's how much my power bill is!" And what poor people we are for $60 of disposable income to be hard to come by (to be used on a $200-$300 machine). However, I am not here to say that $60 isn't a lot of money, and nor am I here to argue the games are or aren't worth $60. What I am going to say is this: economically it makes perfect sense that games cost $60 on launch day. See, there's this thing called supply and demand--the higher the demand, the more something is going to cost.
You see this in every single other market that exists. When an item of clothing first hits the racks, it's going to cost an outrageous amount of money. You can see this base price by looking at the manufacturer tag. Your average shirt from a department store is going to be $30-$50, your average pair of jeans $40-$80, and your average coat $80-$200. But that's the base price--everybody knows if you buy a coat at the beginning of fall and winter it's going to cost way more than if you buy it at the beginning of spring. This is because the store knows lots of people are going to be buying coats in fall and winter, so they leave them at those manufacturer's prices and only start discounting later in the season when that initial sale spike has leveled off. Sure they can still get a profit with those discounted prices, but they know the kind of people who buy coats and such at full price are more interested in having the coat right then than getting a bargain. These seasons and drops in prices are very predictable, so a customer who is patient and watchful enough can get that $200 coat for $50 if they just time their purchase right.
So why is it always such a surprise when the same thing happens when games are first released? A big game gets released, and there's a huge spike in demand for it. Naturally the publisher is going to charge as much as possible to get as much as they can out of that initial spike of sales, made up of buyers who are more concerned about having the product immediately than getting a bargain. Then as time passes and that spike of sales from the initial release is over, they lower the price to reel in everybody else--the ones who wanted the game but wanted a lower price more, the ones who didn't really want the game but were willing to try it on a lower price, etc. Lowering the price facilitates long-term sales once they have bled dry the diehards.
I don't get angry or feel ripped-off whenever games get released for $60. It makes perfect sense to me, and I use it to my advantage. I just bought Mass Effect 3 last week for $40. This is mostly because I disagree with EA's business practices and didn't want to give them the full $60 for it, but still I paid the price most gamers around here tend to say they're comfortable paying for a game and all I had to do was wait. The way I see it, if you feel ripped off for having to pay $60 for a new game, then what you have isn't a problem with the games industry. You have a problem with the entire system of supply and demand, and your apparent inability to use this widely-known and widely-used system to your advantage. Like with every other time-sensitive purchase in life, you have to decide if you value having the product immediately, or paying a lower price for it.
Yes, most games cost $60. We all know the breakdown: "That's 3 weeks of food!" "That's my cell phone bill!" "That's how much my power bill is!" And what poor people we are for $60 of disposable income to be hard to come by (to be used on a $200-$300 machine). However, I am not here to say that $60 isn't a lot of money, and nor am I here to argue the games are or aren't worth $60. What I am going to say is this: economically it makes perfect sense that games cost $60 on launch day. See, there's this thing called supply and demand--the higher the demand, the more something is going to cost.
You see this in every single other market that exists. When an item of clothing first hits the racks, it's going to cost an outrageous amount of money. You can see this base price by looking at the manufacturer tag. Your average shirt from a department store is going to be $30-$50, your average pair of jeans $40-$80, and your average coat $80-$200. But that's the base price--everybody knows if you buy a coat at the beginning of fall and winter it's going to cost way more than if you buy it at the beginning of spring. This is because the store knows lots of people are going to be buying coats in fall and winter, so they leave them at those manufacturer's prices and only start discounting later in the season when that initial sale spike has leveled off. Sure they can still get a profit with those discounted prices, but they know the kind of people who buy coats and such at full price are more interested in having the coat right then than getting a bargain. These seasons and drops in prices are very predictable, so a customer who is patient and watchful enough can get that $200 coat for $50 if they just time their purchase right.
So why is it always such a surprise when the same thing happens when games are first released? A big game gets released, and there's a huge spike in demand for it. Naturally the publisher is going to charge as much as possible to get as much as they can out of that initial spike of sales, made up of buyers who are more concerned about having the product immediately than getting a bargain. Then as time passes and that spike of sales from the initial release is over, they lower the price to reel in everybody else--the ones who wanted the game but wanted a lower price more, the ones who didn't really want the game but were willing to try it on a lower price, etc. Lowering the price facilitates long-term sales once they have bled dry the diehards.
I don't get angry or feel ripped-off whenever games get released for $60. It makes perfect sense to me, and I use it to my advantage. I just bought Mass Effect 3 last week for $40. This is mostly because I disagree with EA's business practices and didn't want to give them the full $60 for it, but still I paid the price most gamers around here tend to say they're comfortable paying for a game and all I had to do was wait. The way I see it, if you feel ripped off for having to pay $60 for a new game, then what you have isn't a problem with the games industry. You have a problem with the entire system of supply and demand, and your apparent inability to use this widely-known and widely-used system to your advantage. Like with every other time-sensitive purchase in life, you have to decide if you value having the product immediately, or paying a lower price for it.
