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?
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?
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.
Last edited by unwinddesign; 02-22-2009 at 03:46 PM.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Rob2600; 02-22-2009 at 04:07 PM.
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.
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.
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 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.
Last edited by Rob2600; 02-22-2009 at 07:22 PM.
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...
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.
+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.
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
Last edited by megasdkirby; 02-22-2009 at 07:36 PM.
Proud owner of a Neo 25 Neo Geo Candy Cab!
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.
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?)
Time will be when the broadest river dries
And the great cities wane and last descend
Into the dust, for all things have an end
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.
Last edited by Rob2600; 02-22-2009 at 08:13 PM.