Do Video Games Cost Too Much? [Slashdot]

[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...

IMO