Do Video Games Cost Too Much? [Slashdot]

[DP ServBot]

Valve's Gabe Newell gave the keynote address at this year's Design, Innovate, Communicate, Entertain (DICE) Summit about the cost of games, the effect of piracy, and how to reach new players. Valve undertook an experiment recently to test how price affected the sales of their popular survival-horror FPS, Left 4 Dead. They Reduced the price by 50% on Steam, which "resulted in a 3000% increase in sales of the game, posting overall sales that beat the title's original launch performance." They also tested various other price drops over the holidays, seeing spikes in sales that corresponded well to the size of the discount. This will undoubtedly add to the speculation that game prices have risen too high for the current economic climate. G4TV ran a live blog of Newell's presentation, providing a few more details.http://games.slashdot.org/slashdot-it.pl?from=rss&op=image&style=h0&sid=09/02/20/0750203 (http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/20/0750203&from=rss)
Read more of this story (http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/20/0750203&from=rss) at Slashdot.
http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~at/4dNFe2e0ZPnQLc6iP2NcxUH0Ud0/i</img> (http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~at/4dNFe2e0ZPnQLc6iP2NcxUH0Ud0/a)
http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~r/Slashdot/slashdotGames/~4/oPai98ymyuw

More... (http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdotGames/~3/oPai98ymyuw/article.pl)

[Oobgarm]

Given the current 'economic climate', I think they are, but that's just because money goes elsewhere and not so much to entertainment.

I do honestly think that companies should release new IPs at $40. If EA had done that with both Dead Space and Mirror's Edge, they'd have sold a ton more copies than they did. You gotta figure that the difference will be made up in the fact that they're going to sell more copies. I mean, you're going to have those who are always going to wait for the drop to $20, but a lower initial cost might spur on some of those fence-sitters. Only reason I personally got either of those games is because I got them for $40 each.

All things considered, scale things back by even just $10 for a while and I think companies will see higher sales. It's amazing what a difference a small amount makes.

[JunkTheMagicDragon]

this is why gamestop does gangbusters on their used game sales. price, price price.

i can buy a new 360 game for $60, or i can buy two or three used ones for the same price. not a hard decision to make, unless you're talking about an absolute must-have new release.

i would def buy more new games if the initial cost was lower. i remember some cd stores around here used to sell new release cds for cheap (around 10 or 15 bucks) for the first couple of days to drive sales, then after that the price would go back to retail. if i was on the verge with an album, the cheap price would usually make me go for it. for aaa titles, the publishers would be shooting themselves in the foot, but like oobgarm said, something similar for new ips or niche titles would be a good sales booster.

on second thought though, i wonder how well this kind of thing would work in a brick-n-mortar. valve has so little overhead on steam, they can afford to do a drastic sale. cutting the price on physical releases (whose price includes distribution costs and the retailer's cut) would drive margins down for everyone. sales would increase, but would it be enough to offset those losses?

[Jorpho]

With so many unplayed games sitting around, the thought of spending more than $20 on a single new game these days makes me downright queasy.

They also tested various other price drops over the holidays, seeing spikes in sales that corresponded well to the size of the discount.Heh. Who wouldn't buy Bioshock for five freaking bucks?

this is why gamestop does gangbusters on their used game sales. price, price price.Except Gamestop's (or at least EB's) used game prices aren't much of deal compared to retail, or even other sources of used games.

[Clownzilla]

My price point for a game is $20 and $200 for a system($100 for a handheld). I don't care if it's new, used, clearance as long as I pay no more than $20 for all of those 1's and 0's on a disc. I understand the advanced technology in games and game systems but in the end it's just a form of entertainment. Games are fighting with TV, dining out, movies, board games, books, etc. and in my world $50 to $70 is a complete ripoff for a video game. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE games but I will only pay a reasonable amount for them.

[chrisbid]

publishers can basically charge whatever they want. the physical cost of production is very low. all of the costs of a game are in development and (for third parties) licensing. Sony and Microsoft have to keep the licensing fees high to make up for the losses sustained with hardware sales.

i agree that game prices are too high, but the bigger problem is expensive hardware.

[j_factor]

Games do cost too much. I remember paying $40 for new games in the Playstation days. There is no reason a game should be $60 by itself. It's not like we've gone back to cartridges.

[eugenek]

Yeah, you'd think they'd be smart enough to figure that halving your profit margin but selling three times as many copies = more revenue. Does anyone remember when the 2K franchise went to $19.99 for newly released games? I hope that made money for them, it's the only time I've bought all of a single year's sports games. Too bad EA had to screw them over on the NFL license. Fuck EA.

[backguard]

The thing with lowering the release price on a game is that you don't want to get lumped into the euphemistic category of a "value title". Lots of consumers equate quality with price and they may view a $40 dollar new release as worse than a $60 game just based on the pricetag. Stupid yes, but it is normal consumer behavior.

[Clownzilla]

publishers can basically charge whatever they want. the physical cost of production is very low. all of the costs of a game are in development and (for third parties) licensing. Sony and Microsoft have to keep the licensing fees high to make up for the losses sustained with hardware sales.

i agree that game prices are too high, but the bigger problem is expensive hardware.

No matter how it's sliced, the market can't sustain these prices. The consumer does not think about the licensing, development costs, royalties, etc. when they look for games. All the consumer thinks about is "I can't afford this so I won't buy it". It's funny how companies like Sony keep hammering home that $500 is a good deal because it will play Blue Ray movies and games when most consumers will not buy a $500 game system no matter what it does. Sure, I also would love to deck my house out with solar panels and geothermal heating because it just makes sense.............except for my pocketbook.

[bangtango]

Games appear to be less expensive now than they were in the cartridge days. Plus I remember there being far fewer price drops back in the 8-bit and 16-bit era compared to today.

There were a lot of 8-bit and 16-bit games which seemed to be priced at the $40-60 mark long (years) after they had been released and this is something you don't see today. Now a game might be out less than 6 months and get a price drop or two.

Never in the cartridge days did you see new releases come out at $10-20, which is far more common now (and has been since the days of the PS1). Granted that is because you couldn't really do that type of thing in the cartridge days. However, the point I am making is things are better now than they used to be.

[Wolfrider31]

Games appear to be less expensive now than they were in the cartridge days. Plus I remember there being far fewer price drops back in the 8-bit and 16-bit era compared to today.

There were a lot of 8-bit and 16-bit games which seemed to be priced at the $40-60 mark long (years) after they had been released and this is something you don't see today. Now a game might be out less than 6 months and get a price drop or two.

Never in the cartridge days did you see new releases come out at $10-20, which is far more common now (and has been since the days of the PS1). Granted that is because you couldn't really do that type of thing in the cartridge days. However, the point I am making is things are better now than they used to be.

THANK YOU.

I DESPISE the "Games are too expensive" comment. It's filled with ignorance about the basic economics of game development. When you're talking about a large studio like EA or Ubisoft or SquareEnix the cost of a game comes from all sorts of places and few of it are actual development costs. Yes you have license or create game engines, and yes you have to pay for the right to release your game on a particular console (the fees of which usually make up about 10 dollars out of the game price). THEN you have to pay to have the game rated by ESRB (which is highway robbery frankly) otherwise your game won't be allowed on the console you just paid to have your game on. Then once the game is finished you have to pay to submit it to first party (which checks your game for compliance bugs). If you fail the submission you need to pay AGAIN to resubmit.

Oh by the way, you also have to PAY your employees which on a large scale AAA project can number in the hundreds. Most of your employees with technical jobs (programming/networking) are making between 60-80k a year (and won't work for less). Your artists, designers and writers are hitting the 50-60k a year. And lots not forgot your 30-40 member strong QA team (which make about 30 grand a year).

But we're not done yet folks! You have marketing and business managers to pay, production costs if your games a physical release, and lets not forget server and maintenance costs for the game once its released if it has an online mode (which gamers seem to DEMAND).

And factoring all that in, you better hope you break the one million mark because otherwise you're knee-deep in the red and that's where most companies find most of their products. Less than 20% of video games passed through to retailers produce a profit and those games are left to hold the slack of the games that didn't do well.

And I hear you say, "Well just make good games and then we'll buy them." But see, gamers don't. Ever. Zack and Wiki? Ico? On the one hand companies are attacked for releasing tried and true franchises but those are the only ones that sell well. Need For Speed? You know the last one (the one everyone HATED) sold over four million copies? No, game companies can't release new IP at 40 dollars because new IP is a sure fire failure and knocking 20 dollars off the price will kill most companies.

Gamers have a choice: Either buy good games at 60 dollars and encourage new IP by making it successful (and quit buying used or waiting for the game to drop in price) or stop whining about the economics of industry. If you can't afford to buy a game for more than 50 dollars then, well too bad, game companies can't afford to make them.

[hellfire]

some games are waaaay overpriced some are underpriced

[kaedesdisciple]

Even in terms of dollars, $50 for a video game 20 years ago while the NES was still king of the hill is a hell of a lot more than even $60 for one PS3/360 game now. Yet, people still found the money then as they do now. If anything, games are cheaper now just looking at the CPI over the last 20 years.

[j_factor]

Games appear to be less expensive now than they were in the cartridge days. Plus I remember there being far fewer price drops back in the 8-bit and 16-bit era compared to today.

There were a lot of 8-bit and 16-bit games which seemed to be priced at the $40-60 mark long (years) after they had been released and this is something you don't see today. Now a game might be out less than 6 months and get a price drop or two.

Never in the cartridge days did you see new releases come out at $10-20, which is far more common now (and has been since the days of the PS1). Granted that is because you couldn't really do that type of thing in the cartridge days. However, the point I am making is things are better now than they used to be.

Games now are less expensive compared to the cartridge days, but you're skipping a large period of time for comparison. Ten years ago, games were cheaper. Hell, games were cheaper in the "cartridge days" too when they weren't on cartridges. Sega CD and Amiga games were cheaper than today's games. Why are we paying cartridge prices for games on disc? And I almost never see anything under $30 anymore (and that price point is generally reserved for the Wii), unless you're talking about downloads? At one point we regularly had $20 budget games on disc, and even some $10 releases came out on Playstation (The Italian Job, for example).

Inflation isn't a good comparison because the price of media is usually outpaced by inflation. Movies, music, and so on don't cost much more than they did 15-20 years ago.

[Diatribal Deity]

Expensive relative to what?

Meaning if you go out to see a movie = $4-7 /hour
Buy a $50-60 game and say conservatively get at least 10 hours min playtime = $5-6 /hour
(not even factoring in the ability to resell/trade and so on to recoup some cost)

This is a very simple comparison coming from someone who does not buy new games often anymore at $50-60 but can justify the cost from a little bit different angle.

Yeah I'm leaving out the social aspect and such of going and getting out of the house, going on a date, escaping the kids, etc... but I think this point is a valid one.

[MeTmKnice]

IMO, Video Games and Movies (theater and discs) are both over priced. I rarely go to the theater, as I see it as a waste of money.. aside from that all of the god-aweful horrible and stupid movies/sequels they come out with. All because a majority of the world goes to see the damn movie. Most movie makers do not even seem to care about the quality of their movies, but how much money they make. Thus, continuing a vicous cycle of BS.

[Astrocade]

What people that like to compare movies and video games are seemingly missing is that they're two different mediums. Same with CDs and music.

The average movie costs upwards of thirty-forty million to make (studio movie). This initial budget is usually recouped at the box office- DVD and post theatrical sales are usually pure profit. The studios rely on DVD and Blu-Ray sales to achieve profit.

Videogames cost an average of 4.5 million to make. This is usually recouped the first week of sales. All sales after release week tend to be pure profit.

Videogames don't have the equivalent of the box office to break even, it's purely a sales driven market. Thereby- the more a game costs to make the more it has to sell in order to not bomb.

The problem is- what about all the majority of games that cost around three or four million to make? The 60.00 price tag tends to make them exorbitant profit makers. The twenty million dollar games are in the minority (for now) but the 60.00 price tag is neccesary in order for that title to be profitable.

What hurts us as buyers of the games is that most moderately budgeted titles are not worth the 60.00 asking price. That's not to speak of the quality of the games, it's just that nagging feeling you get after finishing a game in two or three days that makes you wonder if the game was worthy of the cash you just shelled out.

The "fair" thing would be to price the games accordingly. We have "budget" games that get released cheaper than average, but "budget" tends to equal "crap" in the eyes of consumers. The thing is, the average price of games is too high. We can, as an industry, drop the asking price down to forty dollars (or even thirty) and still turn a good profit. But you- as the consumer- will still shell out 60.00 for the hot new title, so we probably won't do that. What hurts is the budget games and unknown properties that won't get purchased because the price is too high. Some are indeed very good- but the consumer is much less likely to take a chance on that mystery title while they have Final Fantasy or Halo sitting next to it.

Games could stand to be cheaper, but if you look at the big picture, games are MUCH cheaper now than they ever were. The average Atari title in 1979 was fifty dollars new. Adjusted for inflation, games today should cost around 150.00.

[ProgrammingAce]

The thing is, if the market for $60 games falls out, development costs aren't going to fall. A lot of developers will no longer be able to afforde to make games and there will be less games on the market.

At $60 a game, a lot of titles still never break even. It's impossible to predict sales at various price points. It works great for steam, but steam gets to hammer all of their users to show the drop. In the retail market what are they going to do, pay more in marketing to show that they've lowered the price on their game? Good luck balencing a cheaper game with higher marketing and trying to get the right balance before you go out of business.

[Cryomancer]

I think games cost too much to make. The should maybe start thinking about making games that aren't all supercomplex "theatrical experiences" and start giving us fun again.

[The 1 2 P]

The reason I seldom buy new games at release is because the $60 price point is way too much for me. I understand why publishers have to do it but the economy isn't currently built to sustain that price point. Obviously some companies are doing better than others. I remember during the PS1 days that you could actually get new release games for free by trading in three or four used games at EB. I miss those days. But as long as two new release games total $120 then I won't be buying many new releases.

[otoko]

Indeed. I usually buy stuff that makes it in the bargain bin. So 20-30$ is my price range. Rarely I will purchase anything above that.

[eskobar]

Quite honestly, i think that video games are overpriced.

The main reason of this is that companies still have the pricing model of cartridges. I know that many carts were sold for $70 or $80 dollars in the 90's.

The royalty fees and development costs are unnecessary high, today`s games require more technical resources but we have much more advanced ways of processing those requirements.

Just look a the price of the last generations of PS2's RPGs; they are priced very fair and it shows in the sales numbers; companies know that, but they know that the industry can lost too much confidence if there is a massive drop on prices, the stock market comes first .... then comes Greatest Hits, hehehe

[Rob2600]

I've written this before, but quite a few good Wii games have debuted for $20 to $30. I know the production values in games like Mercury Meltdown Revolution, Geometry Wars: Galaxies, or Pinball Hall of Fame: The Williams Collection aren't as high as they are in games like Metal Gear Solid 4 or BioShock, but they're still great, fun games.

I remember some PS2 games like Mr. Mosquito debuted for $20, too...another good, fun, no-frills game.

At this point in my life, I'd rather spend $60 and get two brand new games that are good, old fashioned, no-frills, arcade-style fun, instead of spending $60 and only getting one brand new game where I have to sit through six hours of FMV.

[j_factor]

What people that like to compare movies and video games are seemingly missing is that they're two different mediums. Same with CDs and music.

The average movie costs upwards of thirty-forty million to make (studio movie). This initial budget is usually recouped at the box office- DVD and post theatrical sales are usually pure profit. The studios rely on DVD and Blu-Ray sales to achieve profit.

Videogames cost an average of 4.5 million to make. This is usually recouped the first week of sales. All sales after release week tend to be pure profit.

Videogames don't have the equivalent of the box office to break even, it's purely a sales driven market. Thereby- the more a game costs to make the more it has to sell in order to not bomb.

Arcades were (are?) the videogame equivalent of the box office. I think it would be ideal if we could somehow bring back the arcade industry to what it once was... Although I have no idea how that would be accomplished.


The problem is- what about all the majority of games that cost around three or four million to make? The 60.00 price tag tends to make them exorbitant profit makers. The twenty million dollar games are in the minority (for now) but the 60.00 price tag is neccesary in order for that title to be profitable.

What hurts us as buyers of the games is that most moderately budgeted titles are not worth the 60.00 asking price. That's not to speak of the quality of the games, it's just that nagging feeling you get after finishing a game in two or three days that makes you wonder if the game was worthy of the cash you just shelled out.

The "fair" thing would be to price the games accordingly. We have "budget" games that get released cheaper than average, but "budget" tends to equal "crap" in the eyes of consumers. The thing is, the average price of games is too high. We can, as an industry, drop the asking price down to forty dollars (or even thirty) and still turn a good profit. But you- as the consumer- will still shell out 60.00 for the hot new title, so we probably won't do that. What hurts is the budget games and unknown properties that won't get purchased because the price is too high. Some are indeed very good- but the consumer is much less likely to take a chance on that mystery title while they have Final Fantasy or Halo sitting next to it.

I think you're overstating the consumer stigma of budget games. NFL 2K5 was a budget game and it sold like hotcakes. Katamari Damacy was a budget game, and I bet it did much better than it would have otherwise.

It would be nice if games were simply priced based on the budget. Except, that wouldn't work too well in an accounting sense -- it would have to be balanced against expected sales. But then some would argue that too much price variation would confuse or alienate the consumer. There's no clear solution to make pricing perfectly equitable. But I'm not satisfied with the status quo.

Think of any game that rapidly dropped in price. I'll say Condemned 2 for example. It was full-price on release, but the price dropped after just a few months. Now it goes for, what, $20? And it's not even a year old. Wouldn't Condemned 2 have been better off just debuting at a lower price point, say $40?

[p_b]

snip

I really would like to know where you get your numbers from. All I know that quite a few studios are closing down at the moment. Why would they do that if they're money-raking millionaires?

[Skelix]

I had shrinkwrapped someplace, one of the Apple II Origin games, it was Ultima IV I think (could have been V or maybe it was Moebius)...

Regardless, price tag was $60. Games have always been expensive, just the way it is.

You can wait for sales, used prices or even video game crashes. I vaguely remember Atari 2600 games from $1-5 at various stores.

Support the community is what I say, I bought both L4D and Deep Space new full price and wasn't let down. But then again I have bought a lot of shit games at full price too.

One thing I'm not supporting anymore though is PC gaming, I think I'm done with that. If I was to buy PC I hate to say it but it would be Steam. As much as I don't like the whole online validation whatever krap, I don't like all the installation of all the extra DRM you get from all the disc titles.

[Astrocade]

I really would like to know where you get your numbers from.

Google was my friend.



All I know that quite a few studios are closing down at the moment. Why would they do that if they're money-raking millionaires?

Are you serious?

Ok. Let me re-phrase that. Why does any business shut down, even when the economy is tight and they're in an industry that makes billions of dollars a year? There's a hundred different reasons why out of the thousands of game developers around, hundreds shut down year after year.

If you bring your "A" game and release successful titles, the only way you go under is due to mismanagement. If you make good games, but don't have a hit or a bestseller, well- you go under. If you make shitty games but people still buy them- well, that doesn't last very long in this industry. But my point is the Videogaming industry as a whole is one of the most profitable industries around. But with all profitable industries, you're going to have your companies that fold, regardless of how much money his neighbors rake in.

I think it was Matt Zane that said "Fuck Rock N Roll- the only two sure bets that you'll make money in America are porn and video games". The only two times in gaming history where it looked as though gaming would be on the verge of biting the dust was the great crash of '83 and the "small crash" of the mid nineties. Games rake in way more loot now than they did during the 83 crash, which is why the small crash of the mid-nineties was only a small crash. Gaming has very nearly reached a sustainable peak that shows the pundits that no matter how tough the economy is, people are still gaming and they're still going to buy games. The only question is, will people still buy games at 60.00? And with the recent industry leanings that indicate that the majors are at least kicking around the idea of lowering game prices, I think the answer is "probably not for long."

[Nature Boy]

Gamers have a choice: Either buy good games at 60 dollars and encourage new IP by making it successful (and quit buying used or waiting for the game to drop in price) or stop whining about the economics of industry.

It's never an 'either or' choice.

I'll continue to buy what I want, when I want, and for the price I want. Doing anything else is crazy.

[Zap!]

My price point for a game is $20 and $200 for a system($100 for a handheld). I don't care if it's new, used, clearance as long as I pay no more than $20 for all of those 1's and 0's on a disc. I understand the advanced technology in games and game systems but in the end it's just a form of entertainment. Games are fighting with TV, dining out, movies, board games, books, etc. and in my world $50 to $70 is a complete ripoff for a video game. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE games but I will only pay a reasonable amount for them.

But $50 to $70 is cheaper than when we paid $40 for games in 1982, inflation-wise.

[Gameguy]

But $50 to $70 is cheaper than when we paid $40 for games in 1982, inflation-wise.
Has everybody's income also increased at the same rate, inflation-wise?

[Icarus Moonsight]

This may be just a regional anomaly, but it is my experience and personal experience goes a long way to shape ones opinions and biases. Anyway, back in the 90's in the Minnesota Twin City area I remember retail prices being terribly high and not just on N64 carts... For many titles, if you didn't catch them at release for MSRP then you were stuck with TRU's premium pricing scale, and anything RPG at TRU up there was 80-100 bucks. Despite the titles MSRP. Dragon Warrior 2, 3 and 4? 70-100 bucks. Phantasy Star for SMS or Phantasy Star II, III or IV? 100 bucks. Panzer Dragoon Saga, Rayearth, House of the Dead or Shining Force 3 for Saturn? 80-100... The release of FFVII seemed to be a big help in normalizing the prices in the region. They seemed to settle down a year or so after. Back then, it irritated me, but I didn't bitch about it. I waited for the clearence sales. Unfortunately, a few of them I listed dried up before the price could get cut down to a reasonable level.

[BydoEmpire]

The average Atari title in 1979 was fifty dollars new. Adjusted for inflation, games today should cost around 150.00.That's just not true (in the States). Most Atari games were $20-$40. Even the NES launch titles were $30 - it wasn't until later that they crept up to $50. Only a few cart games went beyond $50 (SNES RPGs, *some* N64 titles, etc) in the 16-bit era.

I've had my 360 for almost two years and haven't bought a single full-priced retail game. I also just joined GameFly a month ago, and that's been great. Even though I think games are a good value for the money, I have a hard time justifying $50 or $60 for a game these days when there are so many other options.

[carlcarlson]

Even though I think games are a good value for the money, I have a hard time justifying $50 or $60 for a game these days when there are so many other options.

That's how I see it. I think many times the price is completely justifiable, but I still don't buy games new because I know I can easily get them for half price or so in a couple weeks.

[bangtango]

Games now are less expensive compared to the cartridge days, but you're skipping a large period of time for comparison. Ten years ago, games were cheaper. Hell, games were cheaper in the "cartridge days" too when they weren't on cartridges. Sega CD and Amiga games were cheaper than today's games. Why are we paying cartridge prices for games on disc? And I almost never see anything under $30 anymore (and that price point is generally reserved for the Wii), unless you're talking about downloads? At one point we regularly had $20 budget games on disc, and even some $10 releases came out on Playstation (The Italian Job, for example).

Inflation isn't a good comparison because the price of media is usually outpaced by inflation. Movies, music, and so on don't cost much more than they did 15-20 years ago.

I didn't skip anything from 10 years ago. My original answer referenced both "$10 games" and the original Playstation. Nor did I ever use the word inflation.

I don't see what the Sega CD or the price of its games has to do with this discussion. Sega's business model during the days of the Sega CD and following it should hardly be a blueprint for any console manufacturer, first party publisher or third party publisher to follow today. Unless their respective executives want a roadmap of what NOT to do.

Besides the Sega CD was riddled with FMV junk and half-baked Genesis ports with little more than enhanced music, most of which (the Genesis ports) came out pretty damn late compared to the Genesis counterpart. Like Mortal Kombat or NBA Jam. None of that stuff was worth $50.

Nobody in their right mind would have the balls to charge $50-60 upon release for the Sega CD versions of Mortal Kombat and NBA Jam when they missed the SNES/Genesis versions by MONTHS and when half the damn country already owned the SNES/Genesis versions. Of course they were going to be cheaper than cartridge games OR any A-list games coming out last year or this year.

So the fact stuff on Sega CD was cheaper than anything on 360 or PS3 today just doesn't matter to me.



But then some would argue that too much price variation would confuse or alienate the consumer.

It is a good argument. You wouldn't find it confusing if (hypothetically) Capcom dropped Street Fighter 4 in January at $20 on release, a new Mega Man sequel at $30 in March, a new Bionic Commando game at $40 in May, an all new Resident Evil sequel at $50 in August and a new sequel Dead Rising at $60 on release in November?

Plenty of Dead Rising and Resident Evil fans would be pissed off and I don't see any logical way you could explain it to them.

[Gameguy]

I just remembered back when Final Fantasy V was released for the Gameboy Advance. It was $39.99 in most places when it was released, except at Wal-mart where it was priced at $16.88(it was $16.XX for sure)for a sale. The sale was for the week that it was released, and I remember a bunch of people took advantage of the sale. I'm not sure why it was priced that low, but it was very good for a newly released game.

[stonecutter]

I have noticed that here in Canada Street Fighter IV is 69.99 - wow. I am sort of interested in the game, but when I seen that I flat out refuse.

[Astrocade]

That's just not true (in the States). Most Atari games were $20-$40. Even the NES launch titles were $30 - it wasn't until later that they crept up to $50. Only a few cart games went beyond $50 (SNES RPGs, *some* N64 titles, etc) in the 16-bit era.

I've had my 360 for almost two years and haven't bought a single full-priced retail game. I also just joined GameFly a month ago, and that's been great. Even though I think games are a good value for the money, I have a hard time justifying $50 or $60 for a game these days when there are so many other options.

You're right, a lot of games were twenty-forty dollars. Usually after they'd been out a while. Atari 2600 cartridges later dropped in price as well, as White Knight pointed out in 1982 the average price was 40.00. (Also keep in mind that this was 1982- one year before the spectacular crash that completely obliterated gaming. Hell, you could find cartridges going for a dollar or two in some places). That was due to a lot of things- all the sudden the software was cheaper to produce and there was increased competition from a lot of different console makers.

But like I said, in 1979 when Atari was the big kid on the block, the cartridges ran 49.99. If my camera was up and running, I could show you the K-Mart price tags on my boxed games.

Also, if the NES launch titles were 30.00 at launch, they didn't remain that way. My parents payed 39.99 for Excitebike in 1989.

[badinsults]

I was at EB Games last week, and saw Fallout 3 for $70 and scoffed. But then, I remembered how 13 years ago, I paid $110 for Turok: Dinosaur Hunter, and saw Chrono Trigger for $95. Doom 64 was $140. Back in 1993, I bought Final Fantasy II for $75. No, games don't cost so much these days, if you look at it compared to the cartridge era.

[makaar]

I'd say I'd buy a lot more games brand new if they were still 40-50 at release. Strangely I find myself buying into limited edition bundles more though, and spending upwards of 120...

Back in the cartridge days I never paid more than $50 for anything...so I pay more these days for sure...then again for a while my parents bought my games for me when the NES/Genesis came out...

[Zap!]

Has everybody's income also increased at the same rate, inflation-wise?

Yes. The minimum wage back in 1982 was a scant $3.35/hr. I really don't get inflation. Since prices AND wages both go up together, why doesn't everything just stay the same?

[Zap!]

I have noticed that here in Canada Street Fighter IV is 69.99 - wow. I am sort of interested in the game, but when I seen that I flat out refuse.

Apparently, you don't remember how much Street Fighter II was for the SNES in 1992.

[Ed Oscuro]

Valve's Gabe Newell gave the keynote address at this year's Design, Innovate, Communicate, Entertain (DICE) Summit about the cost of games, the effect of piracy, and how to reach new players. Valve undertook an experiment recently to test how price affected the sales of their popular survival-horror FPS, Left 4 Dead. They Reduced the price by 50% on Steam, which "resulted in a 3000% increase in sales of the game, posting overall sales that beat the title's original launch performance."
The strange thing about this is that I hadn't bought a new game at full retail for well over a year before L4D. I paid full retail for that one, however.

Haven't played it in a while now. Still waiting on that new content.

[BHvrd]

To me it's all about the features a game offers. If it's a single player game I usually won't pay over $30 for it, period. I look at it as "I can just play that later". If it's a new game with online/offline/co-op/splitscreen/great single player I almost always will buy it at the full $60 retail.

If they started focusing on more options then it would justify at least "my" purchase. I can't count the number of times i've said (Damn, I wish GTA IV was splitscreen).

I would vote for more options versus less price and I think current prices can and should cover all those bases.

[boatofcar]

Apparently, you don't remember how much Street Fighter II was for the SNES in 1992.

I don't understand your argument. Sure, I remember how much SF2 was when it came out for the SNES. Why should have anything to do with being put off at the price SF4 is?

I will never, ever, ever pay $60 for a new retail game again. I paid close to $100 for FFIII and Chrono Trigger back in the day, but that's when all I ever did was play video games, so it was money well spent.

If you want to pay an extra $20 to "support the industry" instead of waiting 2 or 3 months for a $40 price drop, that's great, but to me it's just throwing your money away. After all, what's the worst that could happen? Studios stop spending so much money producing games I'm not interested in playing anyway? Boo freaking hoo. Maybe they'll decide to spend more time on games that are fun instead of pushing the graphics in cutscenes faster towards the uncanny valley.

[Ed Oscuro]

Do prototypes cost too much?

At least the new-games industry doesn't control pricing and/or have a limited number of products being chased by a large pool of enthusiasts.

Speaking of SF2, there's an interesting comparison: George H.W. Bush's economy of 1992 vs. today's.

[crazyjackcsa]

I don't understand your argument. Sure, I remember how much SF2 was when it came out for the SNES. Why should have anything to do with being put off at the price SF4 is?

I will never, ever, ever pay $60 for a new retail game again. I paid close to $100 for FFIII and Chrono Trigger back in the day, but that's when all I ever did was play video games, so it was money well spent.

If you want to pay an extra $20 to "support the industry" instead of waiting 2 or 3 months for a $40 price drop, that's great, but to me it's just throwing your money away. After all, what's the worst that could happen? Studios stop spending so much money producing games I'm not interested in playing anyway? Boo freaking hoo. Maybe they'll decide to spend more time on games that are fun instead of pushing the graphics in cutscenes faster towards the uncanny valley.

What's there to understand? He was pointing out that games have fallen in price quite a bit.
FF3 was released in 1990 @ 100 Dollars.
Now normally, inflation is around 3%, so if FF3 was released today, it should cost around 170 dollars.

SF 4 was released @ 70 Dollars. That's a 30% reduction in the price of a top tier game. Or, indexed for inflation, less than half the original cost.

Other than games, is there any other product that has done this over the last 20 years? I know people will point out computers and other Electronics, but overall, how has the price of a high end TV /Computer changed? What they can do has, but has the price?

Maybe games are too expensive for you. But in real world pricing, the price of a game has naver been lower

[scooterb23]

I haven't seen a video game in the past year that was worth spending over $20 of my own money on.

So, I would have to say yes, video games are overpriced.

I've spent $75 on more than one board game in that same amount of time. I guess I can get more value out of the board games anymore...

[boatofcar]

Other than games, is there any other product that has done this over the last 20 years? I know people will point out computers and other Electronics, but overall, how has the price of a high end TV /Computer changed? What they can do has, but has the price?

Maybe games are too expensive for you. But in real world pricing, the price of a game has naver been lower

:roll:Has the price of a high end TV/Computer changed? Ten years ago, how much was a 40" plasma? What was the average price of an IBM PC in 1981? What is the average price of a PC now? Did you even think before you wrote that?

And WTF is "real-world" pricing? Please show me where you get such information. Price is dependent on supply and demand. If enough people stop buying $60 games, $60 games will disappear.

[boatofcar]

What's there to understand? He was pointing out that games have fallen in price quite a bit.
FF3 was released in 1990 @ 100 Dollars.
Now normally, inflation is around 3%, so if FF3 was released today, it should cost around 170 dollars.

In what world do you live in where Final Fantasy 3 was released in 1990?

And at $100 MSRP?


Thanks for playing!

[bangtango]

Not singling anybody out here, this is more of a generalization that could apply to any gaming forum on the internet.

To me, the same people who complain about $50-60 video games being overpriced are the same people who complain about $10-15 cd's being "too expensive" and $15-20 movies being "too expensive."

Some people just are never going to be happy. You could price the next Dead Rising game at $20 and they'd still find something to piss and moan about. Entertainment has a cost and some people aren't happy about it. They think everything should be free, including a lunch.

Yet many of these same people have no problem dropping $40-60 or more for used PC Engine, Sega Saturn (imports) or Playstation 1 games online.

Nor do these same folks seem to mind paying market price for used Marvel vs. Capcom games...........or a myriad of other high-priced and USED games from 5, 10 or 15 years ago.

[G-Boobie]

In what world do you live in where Final Fantasy 3 was released in 1990?

And at $100 MSRP?


Thanks for playing!

I'm pretty sure he's referring to Final Fantasy VI and boned the release date. I remember Chrono Trigger being nearly one hundred dollars on release: thank God for optical media and it's cheap and efficient manufacturing processes.

Here's the problem: games have a significant amount of content for the money. An average RPG is forty hours or more, and even action games and FPS' seldom clock in at less than ten hours each. That doesn't count the potentially limitless playtime you could potentially eke out of online multiplayer. That's the justification for game prices being what they are, though the realities are more likely to be licensing costs and a relatively narrow consumer base.

That narrow consumer base(us, by the way) are crazy enough to buy quite a few of these games. We try and stay abreast of current gaming trends, and keep up with all the triple A releases. Most game consumers are not that crazy. They buy two, maybe three of these games a year, and that's enough for them. Not enough for the developers and publishers though: their costs have skyrocketed, and the core audience hasn't expanded wide enough to make up for it.

In the final analysis, games aren't really too expensive: making them is. Grand Theft Auto 4 didn't actually make a huge return: it was profitable, but if a game sells, what, ten million copies, it shouldn't be marginally profitable: it should be a WoW style super success. EA lost their asses last year, even though they had a pretty strong line up of big sellers. A couple thousand copies isn't enough anymore. They all need to be GTA 4 style sellers, and it simply isn't possible.

Nintendo, for all their faults and tarnished reputation with the 'core' audience, once again shows that it's ahead of the curve with the Wii and DS. Damn near everyone involved with it is making money. They're cheap and easy to develop for, and everyone has one. They've both reduced their own overhead, the overhead of their third party developers, AND increased the base of people they're selling to, all in three years. Sony, Microsoft, and the big third parties have some catching up to do...

[walrusmonger]

I don't think games cost too much- games are a luxury and if someone wants to play, there are tons of cheaper options compared to brand new $60 games and $300+ consoles.

It's like saying that handbags cost too much if all you try to buy are brand new louis vuitton bags- you could go to walmart and pick up a bag for a fraction of the price that will do pretty much the exact same thing.

[Zap!]

I don't understand your argument. Sure, I remember how much SF2 was when it came out for the SNES. Why should have anything to do with being put off at the price SF4 is?

It has plenty to do with it. It was $75 in 1992, which is $109.55 in 2007 (inflation calculator site didn't go past 2007). So $69.99 is far less than it used to be.



I will never, ever, ever pay $60 for a new retail game again. I paid close to $100 for FFIII and Chrono Trigger back in the day, but that's when all I ever did was play video games, so it was money well spent.

Never say never, or you won't be buying new games in 2025 or even 2020. By then, no new game will be $under $60, but it won't matter, since you will be making a lot more money.


If you want to pay an extra $20 to "support the industry" instead of waiting 2 or 3 months for a $40 price drop, that's great, but to me it's just throwing your money away. After all, what's the worst that could happen? Studios stop spending so much money producing games I'm not interested in playing anyway? Boo freaking hoo. Maybe they'll decide to spend more time on games that are fun instead of pushing the graphics in cutscenes faster towards the uncanny valley.

Not supporting anything, just pointing out that games in 2009 are cheaper than ever. A lot of brand new NES games in 1988 were $50. I don't even want to say how much that would be in today's money.

And if you think SF4 will be $40 in 2 or 3 months, well that would make you crazy. Most big-name games don't price drop quickly.

[Zap!]

Not singling anybody out here, this is more of a generalization that could apply to any gaming forum on the internet.

To me, the same people who complain about $50-60 video games being overpriced are the same people who complain about $10-15 cd's being "too expensive" and $15-20 movies being "too expensive."

Some people just are never going to be happy. You could price the next Dead Rising game at $20 and they'd still find something to piss and moan about. Entertainment has a cost and some people aren't happy about it. They think everything should be free, including a lunch.

Yet many of these same people have no problem dropping $40-60 or more for used PC Engine, Sega Saturn (imports) or Playstation 1 games online.

Nor do these same folks seem to mind paying market price for Marvel vs. Capcom games...........or a myriad of other high-priced and USED games from 5, 10 or 15 years ago.


To quote Chris Rock, I think they're just poor, broke bastards. :)

[stonecutter]

I remember the price of SFII back in 1992 as well, I wouldn't pay the 75 then either lol.

Since we are throwing out sayings lol, another saying "a fool and his money soon part"

I can wait the 2-3 months, in that time I am pretty sure my local Blockbuster will have it for 49.99 or 39.99 and some buy 1 get one half priced or such deal.

I have bought pleny of games new at 60 in the last 6 months, but in todays economy, I am sure myself and a lot of other people look a little closer at these prices and decide to wait. I just decided I have some pretty new games that I can still get a lot of play out of, and after that get a game like SFIV at a better price somewhere.

On the flip side I can understand someone who is into the series more than me can easily justify the early spend at top dollar, and get their enjoyment for three more months than me when it is a hotter item. Nothing wrong with that either, I know I have done it my share of times on new games or technology. Some items you just can't wait for depending on your interest.

[Zap!]

I remember the price of SFII back in 1992 as well, I wouldn't pay the 75 then either lol.

Since we are throwing out sayings lol, another saying "a fool and his money soon part"

I can wait the 2-3 months, in that time I am pretty sure my local Blockbuster will have it for 49.99 or 39.99 and some buy 1 get one half priced or such deal.

I have bought pleny of games new at 60 in the last 6 months, but in todays economy, I am sure myself and a lot of other people look a little closer at these prices and decide to wait. I just decided I have some pretty new games that I can still get a lot of play out of, and after that get a game like SFIV at a better price somewhere.

On the flip side I can understand someone who is into the series more than me can easily justify the early spend at top dollar, and get their enjoyment for three more months than me when it is a hotter item. Nothing wrong with that either, I know I have done it my share of times on new games or technology. Some items you just can't wait for depending on your interest.


I really don't think it will be cheaper so soon. Big name big hits don't get reduced so fast. Zelda Twilight Princess is still $50 on the Wii, and that was a launch game. Super Smash Bros. Brawl is a year old, and still $50 as well. As far as I know, MLB: The Show '08 didn't go down until the release of '09 neared. It's still expensive in my Blockbuster.

[CDiablo]

I dont feel the prices are too high. If I really want a $60 game(which I seldom do) I buy it, but most times I wait for it to drop to the $20-$30 range which doesnt take too long if you look around.

The thing I feel is out of control is DLC. The shit comes out right after the game is released and adds anywhere from $5-$30 to the overall price if you want the complete game.

[Rob2600]

In the northeastern NJ area, from 1988 to 1990, my parents generally paid $50 to $65 for new NES games (Double Dragon, Super Mario Bros. 2, Super Mario Bros. 3, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Arcade Game, Mega Man II, etc.). This was at Toys R Us, Bradlees, Caldor, Consumers, Video Dynasty, and Video Game Depot.

Some of the older, less popular NES games were reduced to around $40, but overall, the stores we went to charged $50 to $60 for new, popular NES games.

Likewise for SNES games (1991 to 1995), except for some of the super-popular games. My parents bought Street Fighter II: The World Warrior for $85 from Electronics Boutique at Willowbrook Mall. Also, my friend bought every SNES RPG that was released in the U.S. and often paid over $75 each. Games like Batman Returns, Contra III, Final Fight, and F-Zero were usually $60 each.

In 1997, I bought Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island at K-B Toys for $30. The N64 had already been out for several months.

When the N64 came out, Super Mario 64 and Pilotwings 64 were $60 each at Toys R Us. Once stores realized the N64 was the hot thing that Christmas season, they jacked up the game prices to $75...sometimes $85. It was ridiculous. The Funco Land at Willowbrook Mall charged $75 for Killer Instinct Gold that first Christmas. If I remember correctly, Turok: Dinosaur Hunter was the last N64 game that stores charged crazy, rip-off prices for.

Toys R Us sold Mario Kart 64 for $60 in early 1997. Star Fox 64 was also $60 when it was released in mid 1997 and that came with the Rumble Pak. For a while, $50 to $60 was the standard price for N64 games. In the beginning of 1999, many N64 games were being released for $40 to $50. At the time, the big name PlayStation games were being released for $40 and most budget games were around $20.

I remember in the late 1990s, PlayStation fanatics bashed the N64 because the games were supposedly way too expensive (at the time, $40 PS vs. $50 N64). Their argument was that the PlayStation was so much better because the games only cost 1/10th the price to manufacture, compared to N64 games. My response was, "If that's true, how come PlayStation games don't cost 1/10th the price of N64 games?"

Anyway, my point is that PlayStation fanatics complained about the crazy prices of N64 games and boasted about how much cheaper PS games were because they used CDs instead of cartridges. Fine. So how come now that every Xbox 360 and PS3 game is released on optical disc instead of cartridge, the prices have gone back up to N64 levels? What happened to the whole "discs are sooo much cheaper than cartridges" argument from 10 years ago?

[Ed Oscuro]

I remember in the late 1990s, PlayStation fanatics bashed the N64 because the games were supposedly way too expensive (at the time, $40 PS vs. $50 N64). Their argument was that the PlayStation was so much better because the games only cost 1/10th the price to manufacture, compared to N64 games. My response was, "If that's true, how come PlayStation games don't cost 1/10th the price of N64 games?"
Because developers were eating the cost. Way to treat your developers, Nintendo!

On the other hand, I love my N64 and its reliability, so.

Thank goodness for PSN and VC and Steam.

[Rob2600]

From a consumer standpoint, isn't paying $40 for a game that only costs $1 to manufacture a bigger rip-off than paying $50 for a game that costs $20 to manufacture?

[unwinddesign]

About half the people in this thread don't understand basic economics. People want games with amazing graphics, 5.1 surround sound, tons of content and online multiplayer. This costs A LOT of money. It's not cheap to put a game like SFIV together. Neither is it cheap to put a game like Condemned 2 together. I see no reason, however, for Condemned 2's existence from a business perspective. It was destined to fail from the beginning. Game companies have a tendency to do this; the market is way over-saturated. This is not why games are $60, though.

Look at the fucking credits for most games. More than 150 people are listed, a lot of the time. Some don't work directly on the game -- there's a lot more TV adverts and stuff now then there was ten, fifteen years ago. All those people are making at least 20k as a lowball. That's 3 million bucks they need to make back right there. Then you have the cost of manufacturing, distribution costs, cost of online play, licensing, engine costs...those add up quick. On a $60 game, the folks who make it might only see like $20 or $30 per copy sold; this is being generous. $60 is the market price. Games like FFVIII were $50 at release in '98.

Here's the kicker, though. FFVIII was $50 until it basically became a greatest hit. Now, must games drop in price within 2 to 3 months, plus the eBay market has games like GTA IV for $20.

Anyone remember when GTA III came out? It was $50 for literally like 2, 3 years after its release, basically until Vice City.

The people who say games are overpriced just don't get it. No ifs, not ands, no buts. You just don't get it. Wait three months and see the price drop if you're cheap; if you're not, then pay the $60 and shut the fuck up. Or, don't buy it period. There's plenty more forms of entertainment.

When I was seven or eight (1997, so not that long ago) a candy bar was .65 cents at the store. Now, the same size candy bar costs $1.09. That's a more than 50% increase in the span of ten years. The price of almost all food items is SO much higher than they were only a decade ago. Be happy that video games have stayed relatively stable. One video game a month at $60 is chump change, especially if you get 100+ hours out of it. 60 cents an hour? You're almost paying more for electricity.

I definitely don't think cheap asses are killing the industry; a lot of games aren't worth $60, despite what they cost to develop. But publishers can't list the MSRP at $40 -- it won't really do shit. Banjo Kazooie was launched at $40, and it really didn't sell like gangbusters. It sold close to a million copies, I believe, but not nearly as much as its fully priced predecessors. A lot of development studios aren't talented, and they put out shit games. Some development studios are talented, but suck at advertising. This is business; it's not enough to make a good product. You gotta make people want it, too.

[Bojay1997]

Games do cost too much. I remember paying $40 for new games in the Playstation days. There is no reason a game should be $60 by itself. It's not like we've gone back to cartridges.

No you didn't. MSRP on the A-list Playstation games were $49.99. This is the first generation that MSRP has gone up to $60 which I agree is too much in this economy, but let's not pretend that things were cheaper than they actually were back in the good old days.

[eugenek]

The people who say games are overpriced just don't get it. No ifs, not ands, no buts. You just don't get it. Wait three months and see the price drop if you're cheap; if you're not, then pay the $60 and shut the fuck up. Or, don't buy it period. There's plenty more forms of entertainment.

When I was seven or eight (1997, so not that long ago) a candy bar was .65 cents at the store. Now, the same size candy bar costs $1.09. That's a more than 50% increase in the span of ten years. The price of almost all food items is SO much higher than they were only a decade ago. Be happy that video games have stayed relatively stable. One video game a month at $60 is chump change, especially if you get 100+ hours out of it. 60 cents an hour? You're almost paying more for electricity.


I don't see why anyone feeling the pinch of game costs should take any solace in candy bar prices. That's like saying, well, in China you might get arrested for speaking out against the government, but they should be happy and not complain because in North Korea they might be executed for the same thing.

Logic, you just don't get it.

And unless you run the The Luxor, average hourly electricity costs are nowhere near 60 cents an hour, much less "almost...more." Do you pay $432 a month in electricity?

Math, you just don't get it.

[Rob2600]

Look at the fucking credits for most games. More than 150 people are listed, a lot of the time.

True, but what about games like World of Goo? Only a few people worked on that game and it was one of the best of 2008....and it debuted for only $15 (WiiWare) and $20 (CD-ROM).

"World of Goo was imagined by two ex-Electronic Arts developers, Kyle Gabler and Ron Carmel. Their game studio, 2D Boy, was essentially based out of whatever Wi-Fi enabled coffee shop they could find. The developers estimate spending about $10,000 of their personal savings to develop World of Goo which includes rent, food, and minimal equipment."

Not every game needs a ridiculously high budget to succeed.


Besides, when I go to a movie theater, it doesn't matter if the movie's budget was $1 million or $300 million. I pay the same price for my ticket either way. The tickets for bigger-budget movies don't cost more.



One video game a month at $60 is chump change, especially if you get 100+ hours out of it. 60 cents an hour? You're almost paying more for electricity.


average hourly electricity costs are nowhere near 60 cents an hour, much less "almost...more." Do you pay $432 a month in electricity?

Math, you just don't get it.

Eugene is right. In NJ, I pay roughly 6 cents/kWh for delivery, plus roughly 11 cents/kWh for supply. That equals roughly 17 cents/kWh, not 60 cents.

Then again, Unwinddesign is only 19 years old and probably hasn't started paying his own electric bill yet, so he probably didn't know what the actual cost is.

[Ed Oscuro]

From a consumer standpoint, isn't paying $40 for a game that only costs $1 to manufacture a bigger rip-off than paying $50 for a game that costs $20 to manufacture?
No, and that's ignoring the likely comparative production values and a false read of history anyway.

Remember that there were plenty of budget releases on the PSX, and games were still being made for the system just a few years ago. I can't think of a single budget N64 release, and long-term support was nonexistent.

[Bojay1997]

True, but what about games like World of Goo? Only a few people worked on that game and it was one of the best of 2008....and it debuted for only $15 (WiiWare) and $20 (CD-ROM).

"World of Goo was imagined by two ex-Electronic Arts developers, Kyle Gabler and Ron Carmel. Their game studio, 2D Boy, was essentially based out of whatever Wi-Fi enabled coffee shop they could find. The developers estimate spending about $10,000 of their personal savings to develop World of Goo which includes rent, food, and minimal equipment."

Not every game needs a ridiculously high budget to succeed.


Besides, when I go to a movie theater, it doesn't matter if the movie's budget was $1 million or $300 million. I pay the same price for my ticket either way. The tickets for bigger-budget movies don't cost more.






Eugene is right. In NJ, I pay roughly 6 cents/kWh for delivery, plus roughly 11 cents/kWh for supply. That equals roughly 17 cents/kWh, not 60 cents.

I think you make some interesting points, however, I don't think a game like World of Goo is really what we are talking about here. I agree that it is possible to have a couple of people create a fun game and sell it for a budget price, but I'm not gonna spend an entire weekend playing World of Goo. A game like GTA IV or Super Mario Galaxy or Killzone 2 is something I would devote significant time to playing. As such, I agree that there needs to be a premium to compensate developers and publishers of very ambitious games. Having said that, however, I don't necessarily agree that new games should cost $60, especially when the cost of other entertainment is actually coming down in price.

I think the comparison of games to films is a good one, as long as you understand that the chances of someone making a $100 million film or even a $25 million film without a proven market for the product is very, very hard to do. Just like niche films, the number of niche games on consoles will continue to decrease, particularly since unlike films, there is no easy secondary DVD/Blu Ray market, PPV or indie theater chains willing to take some of the risk and cover costs. Services like Wiiware or Xbox Live may seem like dream venues for indy developers, but they won't front a small developer money or allow them to get a line of credit with a bank the way a distribution deal for DVDs or even a guaranteed limited theatrical run will do. The PC is also not the best distribution method simply because piracy and a shrinking market share make it a hard market to make money in.

[Rob2600]

I can't think of a single budget N64 release

There were a few "budget" N64 games toward the end of it's life. If I remember correctly, Ms. Pac-Man Maze Madness was released for $29.99. Several others too, including the awful Powerpuff Girls: Chemical X-Traction. On the N64, compared to the typical $40 to $60 games, I consider $30 a budget release.



that's ignoring the likely comparative production values and a false read of history anyway.

Metal Gear Solid and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time both had equally high production values and were both released in late 1998. Metal Gear Solid retailed for $40 to $50, while Ocarina of Time retailed for $60.

According to all the PlayStation fanatics I dealt with in the late 1990s, MGS cost maybe $2 to manufacture, while Ocarina of Time cost maybe $20 to manufacture. That means, according to all the nitwit PS fanatics, they were paying 20-25 times the manufacturing cost for MGS, while N64 players were only paying roughly 3 times the manufacturing cost. Who was getting ripped off worse? Would you rather pay 25 times the cost of something or 3 times the cost of something?

Believe me, I know this is a stupid, stupid argument. I'm just pointing out how dumb and annoying PlayStation fans were in the late 1990s. I worked at Electronics Boutique and had to deal with hundreds of them on a daily basis. Imagine if you heard this argument every day of your life:

"The PlayStation is better than the N64 because CDs only cost 1/10th the price to manufacture than cartridges."

Um, so who's the moron who's paying $40 for a $2 CD?


Obviously, these people were too stupid to factor in development costs.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

Video games have become such a mainstream form of entertainment, that the market is completely saturated with releases. The amount of games being released every year generally means that retailers and game companies are eager to clear shelf space for new product. For the consumer, this is great, because it doesn't take too long for a $60 to become a $20-$30 game.

So no, I don't think games cost too much. I have the patience to wait for a game to be reduced in price, so I usually don't bitch about the initial price point. This means that I'm probably not the 1st to play the hottest and latest game, but I have other things to worry about.

The website cheapassgamer.com, has saved me a lot of money.

Next question...

[Rob2600]

The amount of games being released every year generally means that retailers and game companies are eager to clear shelf space for new product. For the consumer, this is great, because it doesn't take too long for a $60 to become a $20-$30 game.

So no, I don't think games cost too much. I have the patience to wait for a game to be reduced in price

Evidently, you do think games cost too much if you always wait for a 50% to 66% price drop.

[TonyTheTiger]

I don't think games cost to much in the sense that I'm unwilling to pay full price for something I really want. But they do cost too much in the sense that because of my large gaming appetite I have to be incredibly discriminatory regarding which games I pay full price for. If I only wanted to play maybe 5 or 6 games a year then price wouldn't be much of an issue.

I do think, however, that price has a profound effect on the types of games we get. As much as people clamor for new ideas and new IPs, the vast majority seems far more inclined to buy the 5th game in an established series. I'm certain that if game prices were more comparable to DVD/Blu-ray consumers would be a lot more willing to give something new a shot. In fact, a great game like Psychonauts would probably not have fallen flat on its face if the hobby weren't as expensive as it is.

[Gentlegamer]

Video games have become such a mainstream form of entertainment, that the market is completely saturated with releases. The amount of games being released every year generally means that retailers and game companies are eager to clear shelf space for new product. For the consumer, this is great, because it doesn't take too long for a $60 to become a $20-$30 game.

So no, I don't think games cost too much. I have the patience to wait for a game to be reduced in price, so I usually don't bitch about the initial price point. This means that I'm probably not the 1st to play the hottest and latest game, but I have other things to worry about.

The website cheapassgamer.com, has saved me a lot of money.
+1, especially the CAG part.

I think "paying too much" for a game is avoided if you do not let a "backlog" of games pile up. If you buy a full price game, and play it extensively, by the time you're finished, other quality titles will have dropped in price at retail. Then, you can pick out the next game you want.

[Gentlegamer]

Evidently, you do think games cost too much if you always wait for a 50% to 66% price drop.I think he means that those price drops are part and parcel of the current retail environment, so they should be considered in the overall price discussion, i.e. games are cheaper than we think.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

Evidently, you do think games cost too much if you always wait for a 50% to 66% price drop.

Thanks for the input Rob.

I'm sorry everyone, I DO think games cost too much. I always look forward to your corrections of my statements or opinions on this message board. Nintendo sucks, leave me the fuck alone.

[megasdkirby]

For me, it's not about a game being too expensive, instead, it's the psychological mentality about customers purchasing games at the high price.

Many justify a $60 (or any normal price game today) as justifiable simply because it's a new game and it's "worth it". Take for example Metal Gear Solid 4: I would pressume many purchased the game for $60 simply for the fact that they expect a fantastic game. If they game is good, the price is right. It's similar to those getting consoles. I am referring to the overall value of something they think it is worth.

Truth be told, everyone like things cheaper. Like I mentioned previously, many justify the $60 price tag as "worth it". Yet if the same game is obtained cheaper, the better it is!

"$60 for God of War III is well worth the price...but $40 is even better!"

So are games today expensive? That is to the high of the beholder. However, if it's cheaper, the beholder likes it more!

My take is that games should be lowered in price. I bet that even if a killer game costs $20 less than normal, it will sell more than with a higher price tag. And thus, obtain more revenue for the company.

Of course, many other factors come in play. But I feel that if games are cheaper, even slightly, it will help propagate it even further and help both the customer and the company.

Also, I very much doubt someone would complain about paying $40 for a $60 game...although things in this world are really weird... LOL

IMO

[Bojay1997]

There were a few "budget" N64 games toward the end of it's life. If I remember correctly, Ms. Pac-Man Maze Madness was released for $29.99. Several others too, including the awful Powerpuff Girls: Chemical X-Traction. On the N64, compared to the typical $40 to $60 games, I consider $30 a budget release.




Metal Gear Solid and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time both had equally high production values and were both released in late 1998. Metal Gear Solid retailed for $40 to $50, while Ocarina of Time retailed for $60.

According to all the PlayStation fanatics I dealt with in the late 1990s, MGS cost maybe $2 to manufacture, while Ocarina of Time cost maybe $20 to manufacture. That means, according to all the nitwit PS fanatics, they were paying 20-25 times the manufacturing cost for MGS, while N64 players were only paying roughly 3 times the manufacturing cost. Who was getting ripped off worse? Would you rather pay 25 times the cost of something or 3 times the cost of something?

Believe me, I know this is a stupid, stupid argument. I'm just pointing out how dumb and annoying PlayStation fans were in the late 1990s. I worked at Electronics Boutique and had to deal with hundreds of them on a daily basis. Imagine if you heard this argument every day of your life:

"The PlayStation is better than the N64 because the games only cost 1/10th the price to manufacture than cartridges."

Really? So who's the moron who's paying $40 for a $1 disc?


Obviously, these people were too stupid to factor in production costs.

Actually, those Playstation fans had a point as disc based games allowed publishers to drop the price of those titles much more quickly after the initial demand had waned (and presumably development costs had been covered), thus allowing even more profit on the price drops to $40 and then $20 that Playstation titles inevitably saw. Frankly, Nintendo has finally embraced that point by releasing a system which uses normal sized optical discs and keeping their pricing point for A-list games to $50. They also seem to be pretty tolerant of third parties who want to discount games to other price points such as $30 or even $20 on or shortly after release.

There was no reason for Nintendo to stick with a cartridge based format as late as they did, nor did they have to create a custom disc format for the Gamecube. Those decisions limited the interest of third party developers who didn't like the idea of having to deal with Nintendo controlling replication and licensing. A publisher which released a game on the N64 which didn't sell well was stuck not only with the development costs, but also a stock of unsold cartridges which cost between $10 and $20 each to replicate and package. A publisher with a poorly selling disc based game might still have to deal with the loss in development costs, but their replication and packaging costs would be a fraction of those for a cartridge and theoretically, they could still make a little money even if the game was sold at $20 retail.

Those bad design decisions and attempts to control third party publishers are still haunting the Wii as a new generation of low-end third party developers either release total junk for the system or limit A-list releases figuring that they won't appeal to Nintendo's core audience. I'm glad Sega is finally getting into releasing some games that will appeal to older gamers, but I can only imagine what kinds of genre pushing titles we could be seeing if Nintendo didn't keep the door closed for so long.

[Nature Boy]

You're right, a lot of games were twenty-forty dollars. Usually after they'd been out a while. Atari 2600 cartridges later dropped in price as well, as White Knight pointed out in 1982 the average price was 40.00.

I seem to remember my dad paying around $90 CAD for Space Invaders when it was released for the 2600. In today's dollar's that's *outrageous* By the time these prices were around (I don't remember them at all) we were Atari 400 users, and didn't bother buying VCS games anymore (want to guess why?)

[Nature Boy]

There was no reason for Nintendo to stick with a cartridge based format as late as they did, nor did they have to create a custom disc format for the Gamecube.

Their reason for both decisions is easy: piracy.

It's a hell of a lot easier to pirate a CD based game than it is a Cart.

[Bojay1997]

Their reason for both decisions is easy: piracy.

It's a hell of a lot easier to pirate a CD based game than it is a Cart.

Right, because pirated carts and devices to play "back-ups" off various discs and memory devices were not available for Nintendo based systems. Give me a break. If you really want to control piracy, there are other ways to do it besides creating custom formats.

[Rob2600]

Right, because pirated carts and devices to play "back-ups" off various discs and memory devices were not available for Nintendo based systems. Give me a break.

Yes, cartridge copiers existed, but...


When I worked at EB, I was shocked by the number of customers who pirated PlayStation games. Even children and their parents came into the store asking for mod chips. I'd ask why and they'd say, "To play copied games." I'd have to explain to them that copying games - and buying copied games - was illegal.

But that's how commonplace PlayStation piracy was...even children and non-gaming parents thought copying PS games was a perfectly normal thing, just like recording music off the radio onto an audio cassette tape or recording TV shows onto a VHS tape.


Dreamcast piracy had gotten crazy, too. I remember guys would sell copied Dreamcast games at the Fun N Games arcade for $5 each. "You don't even need a mod chip, they're self-booting!"


By comparison, I've never had one single customer come into my store asking how to copy N64 games, nor have I ever seen anyone selling copied N64 games in person, nor have I ever known anyone with an N64 game copier. I'm sure an N64 bootleg market existed, but as far as I know, it was nowhere near as widespread as the PlayStation and Dreamcast bootleg market.

[Jorpho]

Right, because pirated carts and devices to play "back-ups" off various discs and memory devices were not available for Nintendo based systems. Give me a break. If you really want to control piracy, there are other ways to do it besides creating custom formats.Bootleg N64 carts were reportedly too expensive to be profitable. Clearly this trend did not hold for the DS or GBA.

[Letiumtide]

No, but then again I only purchase new what I am willing to support. If it is a game that I want and I wish to support the company and creators in order to recieve more titles of that variety, then it will be done.

For the most part I'd say they're a little too high, but when I think in retrospect to the price of Final Fantasy III for the SNES when it came out at $100, I'd say it's not too bad.

Would they make more sales if it was cheaper? Perhaps, I don't know if it would be enough to sway people into purchasing the game new though. Maybe it would, it wouldn't change my habits though.

[BHvrd]

No, but then again I only purchase new what I am willing to support. If it is a game that I want and I wish to support the company and creators in order to recieve more titles of that variety, then it will be done.

For the most part I'd say they're a little too high, but when I think in retrospect to the price of Final Fantasy III for the SNES when it came out at $100, I'd say it's not too bad.

Would they make more sales if it was cheaper? Perhaps, I don't know if it would be enough to sway people into purchasing the game new though. Maybe it would, it wouldn't change my habits though.

I can understand this line of thinking, but when it comes to companies *cough*Sega*cough* (whom I adore), their crap to gem ratio is a tad on the crap a bit too often. I try to support them but only when I know their on the right track and with Sega you can usually tell just by reading a one page article.

LotR: Conquest is a game I recently bought to support, cause there is no other game like it for this gen and I loved Star Wars Battlefront and it isn't nearly as bad as people go on about, especially if you like SWB.

So yeah I tend to support companies the same way as you say, but always gotta be a little cautious and make sure their effort was at least valiant, I will even bypass AAA titles to support.

[Zap!]

In the northeastern NJ area, from 1988 to 1990, my parents generally paid $50 to $65 for new NES games (Double Dragon, Super Mario Bros. 2, Super Mario Bros. 3, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Arcade Game, Mega Man II, etc.). This was at Toys R Us, Bradlees, Caldor, Consumers, Video Dynasty, and Video Game Depot.

Some of the older, less popular NES games were reduced to around $40, but overall, the stores we went to charged $50 to $60 for new, popular NES games.

Likewise for SNES games (1991 to 1995), except for some of the super-popular games. My parents bought Street Fighter II: The World Warrior for $85 from Electronics Boutique at Willowbrook Mall. Also, my friend bought every SNES RPG that was released in the U.S. and often paid over $75 each. Games like Batman Returns, Contra III, Final Fight, and F-Zero were usually $60 each.

In 1997, I bought Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island at K-B Toys for $30. The N64 had already been out for several months.

When the N64 came out, Super Mario 64 and Pilotwings 64 were $60 each at Toys R Us. Once stores realized the N64 was the hot thing that Christmas season, they jacked up the game prices to $75...sometimes $85. It was ridiculous. The Funco Land at Willowbrook Mall charged $75 for Killer Instinct Gold that first Christmas. If I remember correctly, Turok: Dinosaur Hunter was the last N64 game that stores charged crazy, rip-off prices for.

Toys R Us sold Mario Kart 64 for $60 in early 1997. Star Fox 64 was also $60 when it was released in mid 1997 and that came with the Rumble Pak. For a while, $50 to $60 was the standard price for N64 games. In the beginning of 1999, many N64 games were being released for $40 to $50. At the time, the big name PlayStation games were being released for $40 and most budget games were around $20.

I remember in the late 1990s, PlayStation fanatics bashed the N64 because the games were supposedly way too expensive (at the time, $40 PS vs. $50 N64). Their argument was that the PlayStation was so much better because the games only cost 1/10th the price to manufacture, compared to N64 games. My response was, "If that's true, how come PlayStation games don't cost 1/10th the price of N64 games?"

Anyway, my point is that PlayStation fanatics complained about the crazy prices of N64 games and boasted about how much cheaper PS games were because they used CDs instead of cartridges. Fine. So how come now that every Xbox 360 and PS3 game is released on optical disc instead of cartridge, the prices have gone back up to N64 levels? What happened to the whole "discs are sooo much cheaper than cartridges" argument from 10 years ago?

Well, at least Nintendo is keeping it cheap. I have yet to see a single Wii game cost more than $50, not including games that came with accessories (Guitar Hero, Rock Band, etc.). Even huge names like Zelda: Twlight Princess and Super Mario Galaxy were only $49.99.

BTW, are you positive major chain stores jacked up the prices once the N64 became popular? Because corporate stores don't do that (they all kept the Wii at 249.99 when they could have sold it for twice that), nor do I remember it happening.

[Zap!]

I don't see why anyone feeling the pinch of game costs should take any solace in candy bar prices. That's like saying, well, in China you might get arrested for speaking out against the government, but they should be happy and not complain because in North Korea they might be executed for the same thing.

Logic, you just don't get it.

And unless you run the The Luxor, average hourly electricity costs are nowhere near 60 cents an hour, much less "almost...more." Do you pay $432 a month in electricity?

Math, you just don't get it.

Actually, he does get it. He said a candy bar has almost doubled since 1998. Lot's of things in America have. Yet games gave stayed the same or around the same price for years. That's something to be grateful for. Hell, some 2600 games in 1980 were $40. How much was the original VCS in 1977? Hell, 30 years later, the Wii was $249, the same price.

[boatofcar]

Actually, he does get it. He said a candy bar has almost doubled since 1998. Lot's of things in America have. Yet games gave stayed the same or around the same price for years. That's something to be grateful for. Hell, some 2600 games in 1980 were $40. How much was the original VCS in 1977? Hell, 30 years later, the Wii was $249, the same price.



First of all, I've never seen a candy bar cost a buck that wasn't King Size. If you're paying that much, shop at a different store.

Second, as I stated above, technology things always decrease in price as time goes on. Video games don't have to cost $60, just as CDs don't have to cost $24.99 like they did in the late 90's at a ton of record chains. The sooner consumers wise up to this, the better.

[Sonicwolf]

I seem to remember my dad paying around $90 CAD for Space Invaders when it was released for the 2600. In today's dollar's that's *outrageous* (want to guess why?)

I remember when Nintendo 64 games were 84.99CDN. The PS2 and Xbox games were 74.99 for a while too. Ridiculous prices. Luckily they have deflated over time in regards to brand new games.

[BydoEmpire]

SMS and NES games from $30:

http://www.huguesjohnson.com/features/sears_catalog/sears-catalog-1988-pg614-SMS_full.jpg

http://www.huguesjohnson.com/features/sears_catalog/sears-catalog-1988-pg615-NES_full.jpg

1983, most games $30:
http://www.retroist.com/2008/12/17/the-video-game-systems-of-the-1983-sears-wishbook/sears-wishbook-video-games-07/

Maybe prices had come down by then at the beginning of the crash, but I do remember Indiana Jones for the 2600 being particularly expensive because it was $40.

[Astrocade]

First of all, I've never seen a candy bar cost a buck that wasn't King Size. If you're paying that much, shop at a different store.

Second, as I stated above, technology things always decrease in price as time goes on. Video games don't have to cost $60, just as CDs don't have to cost $24.99 like they did in the late 90's at a ton of record chains. The sooner consumers wise up to this, the better.

I don't think he's talking about grocery stores/department store prices. Ten years ago, in convenience stores , a regular candy bar was .69/.79 cents. Now a regular (not King Sized) bar will run you anywhere from 1.19-1.29. This is in NC, where the price of most things tends to be cheaper than the rest of the country.

But yes, at Wal-Mart a regular Kit Kat bar can still be had for .79. Ten years ago it was .39.

[boatofcar]

I don't think he's talking about grocery stores/department store prices. Ten years ago, in convenience stores , a regular candy bar was .69/.79 cents. Now a regular (not King Sized) bar will run you anywhere from 1.19-1.29. This is in NC, where the price of most things tends to be cheaper than the rest of the country.

But yes, at Wal-Mart a regular Kit Kat bar can still be had for .79. Ten years ago it was .39.

Ok, fair enough. But I maintain that technology tends to get cheaper over time. Remember how much VHS tapes cost in the early 80s?

[Rob2600]

technology things always decrease in price as time goes on. Video games don't have to cost $60, just as CDs don't have to cost $24.99 like they did in the late 90's at a ton of record chains.

You're right...except in the late 1990s, stores like Sam Goody, Coconuts, Borders, FYE, and Record Town sold full-length CDs for $10 to $18. What stores were charging $25? Or do you mean the late 1980s?

[boatofcar]

You're right...except in the late 1990s, stores like Sam Goody, Coconuts, Borders, FYE, and Record Town sold full-length CDs for $10 to $18. What stores were charging $25? Or do you mean the late 1980s?

Yeah, I meant late 80's. Sorry :embarrassed:

EDIT: But, I do remember some stores charging over $20 for a CD well into the 90s, though admittedly it was the exception rather than the rule. I bought Pocket Full of Kryptonite by The Spin Doctors at a store at the mall (I wish I could remember the name of the store, but they went out of business soon after. I want to say National Record Mart) for $24.99, and the K Mart in my town sold the Saturday Night Fever Soundtrack (1 disc) for $25.

Growing up in West Virginia, we didn't have a lot of competing stores to keep prices down, so maybe things were different in places where there were more music stores. Bigdaddychester, if you read this, do you know what store I'm talking about in the Barboursville Mall? It's where the Chinese Restaurant in the food court is now, where the Taco Bell was before that (I think).

[Rob2600]

Yeah, I meant late 80's. Sorry :embarrassed:

Ah, I figured that's what you meant! :)

My parents bought a CD player in 1987 and I remember CDs selling for around $30 each! They bought a few Beatles and Beach Boys CDs. Fortunately, CD prices dropped steadily during those next five or six years...at least in the northern NJ/NYC area.

[eugenek]

Actually, he does get it. He said a candy bar has almost doubled since 1998. Lot's of things in America have. Yet games gave stayed the same or around the same price for years. That's something to be grateful for. Hell, some 2600 games in 1980 were $40. How much was the original VCS in 1977? Hell, 30 years later, the Wii was $249, the same price.

That's irrelevant. It's completely a red herring. If someone thinks that games are overpriced, how does it change anything that candy bars have increased at a faster rate? Or that college costs have increased at a faster rate than either? You might FEEL better about it, but that obscures the fact that it doesn't change a thing about the original assertion. Just because they've had a merely slower rate of increase (or even no increase) doesn't prove anything. So what if the VCS and Wii cost the same amount? Maybe they're both overpriced.

Now, with that said, I can't be certain they are overpriced. There's a magic intersection between profit margin and sales which maximizes the benefit on both sides, but I don't know what that point is.

[Gentlegamer]

Their reason for both decisions is easy: piracy.

It's a hell of a lot easier to pirate a CD based game than it is a Cart.Nintendo also had to avoid clauses in the contract that remained in place after the aborted Sony "Play Station" deal that would force Nintendo to pay royalties to use the CD format and allow Sony access to Nintendo IP.

[Solertia]

IMO, I don't think X360 and PS3 games should be $60. That's kinda ridiculous. Especially when, for multi-platform games, I could get the PC version - which (in most cases) will perform much better in every way - for $50. So yeah, console games should be at most $50, if not less.

[Zap!]

First of all, I've never seen a candy bar cost a buck that wasn't King Size. If you're paying that much, shop at a different store.

Second, as I stated above, technology things always decrease in price as time goes on. Video games don't have to cost $60, just as CDs don't have to cost $24.99 like they did in the late 90's at a ton of record chains. The sooner consumers wise up to this, the better.

Technology decreases, true. But media and software don't count, only hardware does. People who comlain about a PS3 being $400 today would be up in arms when the same tecnology (it it existed) would cost $100,000 in 1998. That's the only reason technology comes down, it's all about hardware advances. Media technology is not the same. Plus, like someone else said, there are teams and teams of people working on games. It costs much more to produce than in 1982. And even in 1982 you were paying $40 for Pitfall!, while it was worked on by just one guy. So games today are a bargan.

Comparing CD's are totally different. A CD in 1989 is the same as a CD in 2009. A game in 1989 however wass far, far less to make than in 2009.

[Zap!]

That's irrelevant. It's completely a red herring. If someone thinks that games are overpriced, how does it change anything that candy bars have increased at a faster rate? Or that college costs have increased at a faster rate than either? You might FEEL better about it, but that obscures the fact that it doesn't change a thing about the original assertion. Just because they've had a merely slower rate of increase (or even no increase) doesn't prove anything. So what if the VCS and Wii cost the same amount? Maybe they're both overpriced.

Now, with that said, I can't be certain they are overpriced. There's a magic intersection between profit margin and sales which maximizes the benefit on both sides, but I don't know what that point is.

Let's say you made about $280 a week in 1992, when the average game was $50. Now let's say you make $1,000 a week in 2009. Would you still be bitching that the average game in 2009 is just $10 more on a PS3? If yes, then I don't know what to tell ya. Get a Wii. You won't see a game over $50 unless it's packed with an accessery.

[Zap!]

IMO, I don't think X360 and PS3 games should be $60. That's kinda ridiculous. Especially when, for multi-platform games, I could get the PC version - which (in most cases) will perform much better in every way - for $50. So yeah, console games should be at most $50, if not less.

Well you're 19 and you're probably on the broke side, so of course you feel like that. I won't knock you one bit, I said the same thing at your age. I want to see someone complain here that's 30+ and makes a decent amount of money.

[eugenek]

Let's say you made about $280 a week in 1992, when the average game was $50. Now let's say you make $1,000 a week in 2009. Would you still be bitching that the average game in 2009 is just $10 more on a PS3? If yes, then I don't know what to tell ya. Get a Wii. You won't see a game over $50 unless it's packed with an accessery.

You keep pulling in irrelevant information. I can think games are overpriced whether I make $1 or $1000 a week. There's a difference between "I can't afford any games" and "I think games are overpriced." I thought movie theater candy was overpriced in 1992 and I think it's overpriced now even though I make a hell of a lot more money now than when I was 11.

[Zap!]

You keep pulling in irrelevant information. I can think games are overpriced whether I make $1 or $1000 a week. There's a difference between "I can't afford any games" and "I think games are overpriced." I thought movie theater candy was overpriced in 1992 and I think it's overpriced now even though I make a hell of a lot more money now than when I was 11.

So what is a fair price for games in your opinion? $50?

I got a Neo-Geo in November 1990, so after paying $200 per game, everything looks cheap.

[megasdkirby]

Well you're 19 and you're probably on the broke side, so of course you feel like that. I won't knock you one bit, I said the same thing at your age. I want to see someone complain here that's 30+ and makes a decent amount of money.

Well, I'm almost 30 and I made nearly $30,000 last year.

Keep in mind that I don't have any debts, bills are on the low side (I don't consume much) and I don't buy much either...and I STILL think games today are expensive.

Of course, that's me...I've always been super cheap when it comes to money. Heck, I complain about spending $1 buying lunch! :D

I have a question, though. What if, in the future, all games will be in digital format (for example, all games will be available for download ONLY). No more physical media exists. Yet the game still costs $60 to purchase. Is this still acceptable, at least regarding price?

[eugenek]

So what is a fair price for games in your opinion? $50?

I got a Neo-Geo in November 1990, so after paying $200 per game, everything looks cheap.

Well, as I said before, I admittedly don't know what a fair price is. The best price is the optimal intersection of profit margin and demand. If a company could either sell 100 copies of a $60 game at a $10 profit margin for each OR 300 copies of that game for $30 at a $5 profit margin, they should do the latter. (I made those numbers up just to illustrate, I don't know the exact structures). That's the Wal-Mart business model that is so successful...lower the margins but make up the loss in volume. I mean, maybe it IS $60 that is optimal, but seeing as to how Gamestop can rake in record sales discounting used games only $5 in some cases, well, my sense is that there's still a little bit of pricing inefficiency. I would personally like to see a publisher simply lower game prices a little instead of bitching about the used game market.

[chrisbid]

im 32, my wife and i together make over 60k a year.

i talk with my wallet. i have yet to buy a new game at the 60 dollar price point. i will not buy DS or PSP games at 40 dollars, and i rarely buy wii games at 50.

[Rob2600]

What if, in the future, all games will be in digital format (for example, all games will be available for download ONLY). No more physical media exists. Yet the game still costs $60 to purchase. Is this still acceptable, at least regarding price?

$60 for download-only games would be a rip-off. That's why I like WiiWare. There's a very good selection of $10 and $15 games. It's a great price point and the library features many high-quality, well-produced titles. I'm sure the same goes for Xbox Live and PSN.

Even for a complex, full-length, AAA game like Metal Gear Solid 4 or Super Mario Galaxy, I think $35 would be the most I'd spend on a download-only version. Think about it: the publisher isn't paying to have discs, cases, and covers manufactured and shrink-wrapped. The publisher isn't paying shipping costs, either. The game is just files on a remote server. With those expenses gone, why would I still be expected to pay $50 to $60 per game? I imagine publishers would pass along at least some of the savings to us, their customers.


Back to WiiWare though: This is the direction in which I want the game industry to go. For $60, I can buy World of Goo, LostWinds, Mega Man 9, and one of the Strong Bad games...or for $60, I could buy Metal Gear Solid 4. I realize for some people, spending $60 and getting one deep, complex game like MGS 4 is the better value. That's fine. For me though, spending $60 and getting four fun, simple, highly-rated pick-up-and-play games is the better value. I don't have time for long, involved games anymore and am glad quicker, simpler, arcade-style games are making a comeback...and for a much lower price, too! :)

[demen999]

Very good question. I think that it is high, depending the game. Then again it depends how I feel about the game thats worth the money it cost. There are games that you can play endlessly no matter how you look at it (Online games, Racing games, Strategy), that I might not have a problem paying 40-60. I couldn't bring myself to pay 60 for some adventure game that lasts me 5-10 hours. Hell even with the new street fighter, I am trying to decide if 60 is worth it.
I love buying used games, but I also like to support the Game co.'s if I really like them. I hardly have a problem paying 40-50 for a Nintendo brand game, although nothing has caught my eye as of yet. But some game I MIGHT not like and pay 60...dunno.

Clownzilla I wish I was as controlled as you! Spending 20 the most on a game is hard with this generation, tell me your secret!!

[Bojay1997]

$60 for download-only games would be a rip-off. That's why I like WiiWare. There's a very good selection of $10 and $15 games. It's a great price point and the library features many high-quality, well-produced titles. I'm sure the same goes for Xbox Live and PSN.

Even for a complex, full-length, AAA game like Metal Gear Solid 4 or Super Mario Galaxy, I think $35 would be the most I'd spend on a download-only version. Think about it: the publisher isn't paying to have discs, cases, and covers manufactured and shrink-wrapped. The publisher isn't paying shipping costs, either. The game is just files on a remote server. With those expenses gone, why would I still be expected to pay $50 to $60 per game? I imagine publishers would pass along at least some of the savings to us, their customers.


Back to WiiWare though: This is the direction in which I want the game industry to go. For $60, I can buy World of Goo, LostWinds, Mega Man 9, and one of the Strong Bad games...or for $60, I could buy Metal Gear Solid 4. I realize for some people, spending $60 and getting one deep, complex game like MGS 4 is the better value. That's fine. For me though, spending $60 and getting four fun, simple, highly-rated pick-up-and-play games is the better value. I don't have time for long, involved games anymore and am glad quicker, simpler, arcade-style games are making a comeback...and for a much lower price, too! :)

I think you have fundamentally overestimated the cost of replication, packaging and shipping. For most games produced in quantities over 20,000 units, it only costs about $3.00 each to get the discs pressed, the inserts and instructions printed and inserted, the cases sealed and the units shipped to distributors. At larger quantities, this can drop to below $2.00. The cost in games is not the physical media anymore (although this was a valid issue in the previous generations where cartridges and even DVD-Roms were more expensive to produce), it's in the development and marketing. Aside from the fact that Wiiware style games don't appeal to a lot of older and more experienced gamers, they also don't generate the same kind of return that an A-list title can. When games do almost $200 million in first day sales like Halo 3 did, that's serious money, even if development and marketing was over $100 million. Even assuming a Wiiware game sells a million units, at $10 a pop, once you subtract out development and licensing, what's the profit like $3 million? I know that sounds like a lot, but even a small studio is very expensive to run and very few download titles ever sell in the millions. The business model for Wiiware only works for small studios and only works for those lucky few that design a really addictive little game. I personally like that Wiiware and Xbox Live and PSN are available for games of this type, but I don't think the majority of gamers prefer games of that type to real A-list titles.

[TonyTheTiger]

There is something I don't understand and maybe somebody more knowledgeable can enlighten me.

Big budget Hollywood Blockbusters can cost up to $300,000,000 in total to produce. I'm guessing that includes distribution costs, prints and advertising, and other expenses. Even the biggest budget video game doesn't come near this kind of cost. So what's with the incongruity?

Granted, a movie has more sources of income. Movie tickets in addition to DVD sales. But movie tickets even today aren't going entirely to make up the cost of the film. That $10 movie ticket is split first between the movie theater and the film's distributor. The film studio takes a relatively small piece of that pie.

So why is it that Superman Returns, one of the most expensive movies ever made, sold for under $30, yet a game that costs a fraction to produce, distributed on the same media format, in an environment where supposedly everybody is buying video games, sells for double that?

The only thing I can figure is that movie studios make a shit load from movies airing on TV and stuff while game publishers don't have that luxury. But there still seems to be some incongruity there.

[demen999]

"The only thing I can figure is that movie studios make a shit load from movies airing on TV and stuff while game publishers don't have that luxury."

I totally don't understand that either. It's like they are always scrapping at the floor for food or something. Yet Uwe Boll continues to make shitty movie after shitty movie.

[Gentlegamer]

I think another answer is that film studios make money off catalogue sales of their films (these days, principally on DVD). Video games, as software, don't have that kind of "shelf life."

[Bojay1997]

I think another answer is that film studios make money off catalogue sales of their films (these days, principally on DVD). Video games, as software, don't have that kind of "shelf life."

That's a big part of it and rights to catalogue sales typically get sold in chunks which is something I have never seen in the video game world probably because until services like Gametap came along, there was literally no market for games on defunct platforms. The other big part of the equation is that films can make money in just about every part of the world and often do with very little localization save for either subtitles or dubbing which costs surprisingly little to do. Also, even a movie which flops has some value in the cable/premium pay cable/PPV/DVD Rental market. Movies typically don't get resold on the used market (unless you have a wholesale shift in technology like VHS to DVD) multiple times the way a game does (with no money coming back to the developer/publisher) and movie studios get a guaranteed residual when a copy of a movie gets sold to Blockbuster or Hollywood Video on top of the purchase price. A game which fails gets thrown in the bargain bin and is generally never heard from again.

[PapaStu]

i talk with my wallet. i have yet to buy a new game at the 60 dollar price point. i will not buy DS or PSP games at 40 dollars, and i rarely buy wii games at 50.

Then you'll be glad to know that at the no DS or PSP game for 40 bucks that you've got the buying power of 95% of all the new games coming out for the systems. Very few DS games come out at 39 bucks (in fact only one company charges that, SquareEnix, high end Nintendo titles are 34, everything else is 29 or less), and so few PSP games are even coming out now that 39 is almost moot (most are releasing at 29 anyways).

The games are what they are due to licensing costs and the insanely high costs that it takes to make many of the modern games on todays systems. PS3 is not cheap to develop for. XBox 360 isn't cheap to develop for and thus why we have 59 buck games and sequel after sequel because its hard for companies to eat a 300 million dollar loss in the pants because of inital game costs and be viable for more than a release or two.

/end rant

If the game hits at a 59 buck pricepoint and I want it, I'll get it. I might not buy it day 1, but i'll get it. Some other games i'll balk at that price. HotD:Overkill isn't worth 50 to me, and having played about 4/5ths the story mode, i'm glad I didn't buy it at 50. Hard to charge 50 bucks for 2 hours worth of gameplay, replayability be damned.

[demen999]

"Hard to charge 50 bucks for 2 hours worth of gameplay, replayability be damned."

PapaStu you hit the nail on the coffin there. That is why I don't have many of the new games out now.

[Astrocade]

"Hard to charge 50 bucks for 2 hours worth of gameplay, replayability be damned."

PapaStu you hit the nail on the coffin there. That is why I don't have many of the new games out now.


This is one reason why cartridges and VHS was so expensive, even after the price of manufacturing dropped. One of the arguments put forth by the studios and developers was "Why pay 7.00 to see it once, when you can pay fifty dollars and see it forever, in the luxury and comfort of your own home?"

Well, it's thirty years later and that novelty has passed. How many people buy a movie or game brand new that they watch/play once a week for the rest of their lives? Maybe one out of 100 titles has that type of merit with the end user, but most people buy games and play them for the first few days or maybe even a week or two at best and then never touch them again?

I think to better ask the question "Do new games cost too much?", we have to weed out a couple of segments of the gaming community:

Believe it or not, I commonly hear "Games aren't expensive" the most from people that buy used games, budget titles, or wait for the games to hit forty dollars. In doing so, you're actively admitting that games are too expensive, otherwise why don't you just buy it when it comes out at full price? Next.

Of course, how many of us work for our own money and have to choose between gas, food and games? I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of us posting in this thread are uh, taken care of by their parents and don't even buy their own games. No offense to you, but you have no business weighing in on this subject unless you are fully self-sufficient and buy your own games. Next.

For the guys that bought one 60.00 game last year because you absolutely couldn't wait for it to possibly end up cheaper, but rarely (if ever) buy a 60.00 title, your input is not needed either as you vote with your wallet.

So, for the guys that regularly buy full priced, 60.00 games, with your own money, do you feel you're paying too much?

[Nature Boy]

Right, because pirated carts and devices to play "back-ups" off various discs and memory devices were not available for Nintendo based systems. Give me a break. If you really want to control piracy, there are other ways to do it besides creating custom formats.

Who said pirating carts wasn't possible? I certainly didn't, so you'll get no 'break' from me.

[Gameguy]

So, for the guys that regularly buy full priced, 60.00 games, with your own money, do you feel you're paying too much?
If you're only asking the people who regularly buy the games at full price, why bother asking at all? Obviously they feel it's worth it or they wouldn't be buying them. That's like asking, "Of the people who like McDonalds the best, who likes McDonalds the best?"

I don't buy games new if they're full price, I wait until they get very cheap. There are certain games I've bought once they got to $19.99, but I really wanted those games very badly. Usually I now limit myself to $5-$10 for games that are current gen(DS games). When the system was newer I had a higher limit, but not really anymore. I only buy games myself, I don't get games bought for me anymore.

The main reason people aren't willing to spend so much on games anymore is because there's a bigger selection available of used stuff. You can buy a full price current gen game, or you can buy older gen stuff for $5-$10 each. The games and systems that are available now used are still pretty good, there's plenty of people that would gladly play an NES, SNES, N64, Gamecube, Dreamcast, Genesis, PS1, PS2, Saturn, etc. The games are still pretty fun and plenty of younger people are looking for this stuff now. Back when the NES was new, what was the other stuff available? Atari 2600, Colecovision, Intellivision, etc. Those aren't that close to the NES, those other systems are still good but aren't anywhere near the same like the NES was.

[TonyTheTiger]

Whether or not game prices are too high is one thing. I'm sure there can be a healthy debate on that subject. But I don't think any reasonable person can conclude that game prices are not at least prohibitively expensive for the purposes of impulse buying. The moments when you just happen to be in a store and see a new game on the shelf you weren't planning to buy yet figured "what the hell" for one reason or another. I have a rather large collection of games yet I can count my full price impulse buys on one hand. Used impulse buys, however, are a different story.

Clearly people like used games. If they didn't then there wouldn't be such boisterous outrage over many of Gamestop's practices. Who cares if Gamestop puts stickers all over used games if you only buy new ones? Games might not be too expensive but they certainly aren't inexpensive. Even if you eliminate impulse buying from the equation, buying every game you want to play brand new will get very costly very fast if you want to play more than a few games each year. I don't know of anybody who isn't at least a little discriminatory with what games to buy at full price.

[Rob2600]

I commonly hear "Games aren't expensive" the most from people that buy used games, budget titles, or wait for the games to hit forty dollars. In doing so, you're actively admitting that games are too expensive, otherwise why don't you just buy it when it comes out at full price?

Exactly.

[Astrocade]

If you're only asking the people who regularly buy the games at full price, why bother asking at all? Obviously they feel it's worth it or they wouldn't be buying them. That's like asking, "Of the people who like McDonalds the best, who likes McDonalds the best?"



I ask this of the people that buy 60.00 games because most of us, as I've pointed out, feel that 60.00 is too steep for a new game and accordingly wait for a cheaper alternative.

The guys that actually PURCHASE 60.00 games are the ones I want to hear from. Do they buy them because they feel that the games are worth every penny, or that they're not expensive, or that they're buying them at full price to support the industry, or they have enough disposable income to buy it whether it was 60.00 or 160.00?

I'm just curious as to who the guys buying sixty dollar games are, as few of my friends and apparently few of the guys on this thread do so. For the ones that do, I want to know how they justify doing so. I really want to be proven wrong when I say that a great majority of 60.00 games are purchased by parents for their offspring. My theory is that the average adult gamer isn't going to plunk down 60.00 every week or two unless he's insanely well off.

[ProgrammingAce]

I think you have fundamentally overestimated the cost of replication, packaging and shipping. For most games produced in quantities over 20,000 units, it only costs about $3.00 each to get the discs pressed, the inserts and instructions printed and inserted, the cases sealed and the units shipped to distributors. At larger quantities, this can drop to below $2.00

It's closer to $10, actually... And that depends on a number of other factors.

[Rob2600]

My theory is that the average adult gamer isn't going to plunk down 60.00 every week or two unless he's insanely well off.

This brings up another question: how many people buy a new game every week or two? Is that normal or excessive?

[Sudo]

I ask this of the people that buy 60.00 games because most of us, as I've pointed out, feel that 60.00 is too steep for a new game and accordingly wait for a cheaper alternative.

The guys that actually PURCHASE 60.00 games are the ones I want to hear from. Do they buy them because they feel that the games are worth every penny, or that they're not expensive, or that they're buying them at full price to support the industry, or they have enough disposable income to buy it whether it was 60.00 or 160.00?

I'm just curious as to who the guys buying sixty dollar games are, as few of my friends and apparently few of the guys on this thread do so. For the ones that do, I want to know how they justify doing so. I really want to be proven wrong when I say that a great majority of 60.00 games are purchased by parents for their offspring. My theory is that the average adult gamer isn't going to plunk down 60.00 every week or two unless he's insanely well off.

I don't consider myself well off at all, and I buy two full-price games a month usually (3 this month), and I have a 3-game Gamefly subscription. Games have been $60 long before this generation, it's nothing new. Development costs keep going up, so I don't see it as very expensive at all for hours of entertainment. Gaming is my primary hobby, and I don't have any problems buying what I want.

[TonyTheTiger]

I ask this of the people that buy 60.00 games because most of us, as I've pointed out, feel that 60.00 is too steep for a new game and accordingly wait for a cheaper alternative.

The guys that actually PURCHASE 60.00 games are the ones I want to hear from. Do they buy them because they feel that the games are worth every penny, or that they're not expensive, or that they're buying them at full price to support the industry, or they have enough disposable income to buy it whether it was 60.00 or 160.00?

I'm just curious as to who the guys buying sixty dollar games are, as few of my friends and apparently few of the guys on this thread do so. For the ones that do, I want to know how they justify doing so. I really want to be proven wrong when I say that a great majority of 60.00 games are purchased by parents for their offspring. My theory is that the average adult gamer isn't going to plunk down 60.00 every week or two unless he's insanely well off.

I'll bite. This is assuming new game = $60. With $40, and even $50 to a point, I'm a bit more flexible.

I'll buy a game brand new under a few circumstances.

1) I absolutely have to freaking have it. A good example is Mass Effect. I wanted it enough and I'll want the sequel enough.

2) It's a game that I want and also involves competition. Something like Street Fighter IV. I want to buy it upon release because not only is it very good but also because I want to get into the game while it's relevant and the competition is hot.

3) I want it and I'm afraid I won't be able to find it later on. This is slightly irrational in the current climate of the industry but it's the result of me being burned before. I can think of more than a few instances where I wanted a game but didn't want it enough to justify paying full price. Yet, before I could blink, my only option became $80+ Ebay prices. Though I highly doubt this is going to come into play with $60 games. So far I've only done this with last gen games.

As you can tell, this doesn't amount to a very large number of games each year. #3 has never come into play with current game prices and the last time I bought a brand new game on a whim was Ar Tonelico back when it first came out. I randomly saw it on the shelf and remembered reading some good things about it in Game Informer and decided to give it a shot just because. And before that it was Disgaea for the exact same reason. Before that, Tales of Destiny II on the PSOne, ditto. I highly doubt I'll be doing that sort of thing now at $60 a pop.

[Ed Oscuro]

I'm sure there's people out there who've bought games at $60 and thought it was too much. Heck, I bought Bioshock a few months ago at $20 and definitely overpaid.

[Astrocade]

I don't consider myself well off at all, and I buy two full-price games a month usually (3 this month), and I have a 3-game Gamefly subscription. Games have been $60 long before this generation, it's nothing new. Development costs keep going up, so I don't see it as very expensive at all for hours of entertainment. Gaming is my primary hobby, and I don't have any problems buying what I want.


Good points, all well taken. But with your Gamefly account, I'd whether to bet that you often buy games for less than full price, correct? I also remember you saying you only paid $38 for SF IV CE, which is less than half of the 80.00 asking price.

That's what troubles me about your post. You claim it's not expensive at all for all the hours of enjoyment you get out of it, but if you find a deal you know as well as I do that you're not going to pay full price for it. I'm sure you do regularly buy full priced games, but your buying (and renting) preferences show that 60.00 isn't expensive, unless there's a cheaper alternative.

(And seriously, I'm not singling you out or anything. I've just yet to hear someone that says that games aren't expensive actually paying full price 100% of the time.)

[TonyTheTiger]

To be fair to him, though, I don't think anybody is unwilling to take advantage of a deal. Paying full price for a game because you don't think it's too expensive is one thing. Paying full price for a game despite having a discount dropped into your lap, however, is just insane.

[Sudo]

Good points, all well taken. But with your Gamefly account, I'd whether to bet that you often buy games for less than full price, correct? I also remember you saying you only paid $38 for SF IV CE, which is less than half of the 80.00 asking price.

That's what troubles me about your post. You claim it's not expensive at all for all the hours of enjoyment you get out of it, but if you find a deal you know as well as I do that you're not going to pay full price for it. I'm sure you do regularly buy full priced games, but your buying (and renting) preferences show that 60.00 isn't expensive, unless there's a cheaper alternative.

(And seriously, I'm not singling you out or anything. I've just yet to hear someone that says that games aren't expensive actually paying full price 100% of the time.)

I actually do pay full price for games a lot of the time. I'm pretty damn impatient, and don't want to wait for Gamefly to send the game to me sometimes (case in point, I'm buying Star Ocean 4 at Gamestop tomorrow). I also have an import copy of Demon's Souls for the PS3 shipping tomorrow, which I paid $70 for since it most likely isn't going to be released here. For developers that I'm a really big fan of, I tend to buy their games new opposed to keeping them from Gamefly. As far as SF IV goes, I still have it at home and will most likely pay to keep it eventually, but I'm holding onto it for now.

[Zap!]

Good points, all well taken. But with your Gamefly account, I'd whether to bet that you often buy games for less than full price, correct? I also remember you saying you only paid $38 for SF IV CE, which is less than half of the 80.00 asking price.

That's what troubles me about your post. You claim it's not expensive at all for all the hours of enjoyment you get out of it, but if you find a deal you know as well as I do that you're not going to pay full price for it. I'm sure you do regularly buy full priced games, but your buying (and renting) preferences show that 60.00 isn't expensive, unless there's a cheaper alternative.

(And seriously, I'm not singling you out or anything. I've just yet to hear someone that says that games aren't expensive actually paying full price 100% of the time.)

I can't speak for him, but as for myself, I'll buy an expensive game if I really want it. Like Resident Evil 5 (not sure what it'll cost yet, but let's say it's $60). I'll gladly buy it for $60, but if I could get it for cheaper, I'll drive that extra mile or go out of my way a bit. But I don't buy many new games. I will get MLB '09: The Show on March 3rd and RE5 10 days or so later, but only when it's a must-have game.

[Zap!]

Well, I'm almost 30 and I made nearly $30,000 last year.

Keep in mind that I don't have any debts, bills are on the low side (I don't consume much) and I don't buy much either...and I STILL think games today are expensive.

Of course, that's me...I've always been super cheap when it comes to money. Heck, I complain about spending $1 buying lunch! :D

I have a question, though. What if, in the future, all games will be in digital format (for example, all games will be available for download ONLY). No more physical media exists. Yet the game still costs $60 to purchase. Is this still acceptable, at least regarding price?

I'm not gonna lie, I wish games were $10 or even free. That would be awesome, I'd save money and get myself a better car. I'm just saying $60 isn't too bad. After all, I found a way to get $200 Neo-Geo games when I was 18, broke and jobless in the early 90's. :)

I am anti-digital media gaming. I need a box to hold and display. For those who want it, they should be far cheaper.

[Zap!]

This brings up another question: how many people buy a new game every week or two? Is that normal or excessive?

I think it's excessive, even though there was a time when I got four games a month from 1987-1991. But I didn't exactly buy them.

[Zap!]

To be fair to him, though, I don't think anybody is unwilling to take advantage of a deal. Paying full price for a game because you don't think it's too expensive is one thing. Paying full price for a game despite having a discount dropped into your lap, however, is just insane.

Yeah, even if you make $500,000 a year, if you have a discount card you will use it.

[Sudo]

I'm not gonna lie, I wish games were $10 or even free. That would be awesome, I'd save money and get myself a better car. I'm just saying $60 isn't too bad. After all, I found a way to get $200 Neo-Geo games when I was 18, broke and jobless in the early 90's. :)

I am anti-digital media gaming. I need a box to hold and display. For those who want it, they should be far cheaper.

I agree completely. I buy the occasional PSN and XBLA title, but that's only because there's no other option. I imported the Asian version of Siren for PS3 since I refused to download it on PSN when there was an English Blu-ray version available.

[Nature Boy]

This brings up another question: how many people buy a new game every week or two? Is that normal or excessive?

Without being able to cite actual statistics, I'm comfortable saying that the average gamer buys at a pace that is far less than the 26-52 games per year quoted above.

I wouldn't call it excessive though - that would depend on the gamer in question (disposable income, free time, etc.)

[Flippy8490]

I definately buy a lot less games with the high game prices. I hardly EVER (unless its a must have) buy brand new games when they come out. I wait a year or so for the price to drop to the 30-40$ range. Even the increase from 50-60$ discourages me from buying.

[Zap!]

You wanna know what costs too much? Not games, but the PS3 Duelshock 3 controller. $54.99 is so insane, I only have one. And the PS3 Wireless Keypad is even worse. It just clips onto your controller and is $50+. It should not be more than $25.

[TonyTheTiger]

I think we can all agree that accessories have gotten absurd. No way that friggin' nunchaku should be $20.

[Zap!]

I think we can all agree that accessories have gotten absurd. No way that friggin' nunchaku should be $20.

Ya know, the $20 for the Nunchucks never bothered me. However, the $40 for the Wiimote is madness. $60 (together) for one controller. Having to buy it seperately also is not smart.

[otoko]

Ya know, the $20 for the Nunchucks never bothered me. However, the $40 for the Wiimote is madness. $60 (together) for one controller. Having to but it seperately also is not smart.

Agree.. It's the reason why I have not gotten a second controller for my Wii.. I've owned mine since launch... Also on the subject the last time I bought a new game at full price was Super Mario Galaxy.. about a month since launch.. I heard from some people on this site that they had almost 600$ a month habits.. Well there's no way in hell I could ever afford that.. At college I make a grand total of (if I'm lucky) 250$ some odd a month and at home I will usually make (also if I'm lucky) 400$. I really do not have the cash to go spending on new games. I'm usually buying my games used from my local goodwill and I estimate approimately 40% of my collection actually came from there.

Well, I have friends who own xbox 360s and they do buy games straight up from launch... but I've asked them how they are able to afford the 60$ price and most of them tell me they will trade many titles back. Now I don't have the resources for that...

/ramble

[robotriot]

I saw Little Big Planet and Motorstorm: Pacific Rift today for €71,95 at a store today. These prices are ridiculous :/

[PapaStu]

You wanna know what costs too much? Not games, but the PS3 Duelshock 3 controller. $54.99 is so insane, I only have one. And the PS3 Wireless Keypad is even worse. It just clips onto your controller and is $50+. It should not be more than $25.


Ya know, the $20 for the Nunchucks never bothered me. However, the $40 for the Wiimote is madness. $60 (together) for one controller. Having to buy it seperately also is not smart.


A quick glance gives me these standard non-sale prices for todays modern console controllers
360 Wireless = 50, buy a rechargeable battery +11 = 61
Wiimote = 40 add a nunchuck +20 = 60
PS3 Dualshock = 55

Accessories is where they make their biggest profit margins. First party stuff never drops in price for a reason. Even if the console is making $$ per unit sold.