Do Video Games Cost Too Much? [Slashdot]

[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...