#1 Posted by banishedsoul1 (294 posts) -

I often hear companies like EA trying to block used games. Companies also seem to cry about games that are not AAA quailty not selling that well. But things is just the market reacting to every game being priced at 59,99. Why does a 60 hour game cost as much as a 6 hour game? Games should be priced on what you get for them. If a farrari costs the same as a Honda what would you pick? why would anyone pick the cheap honda when they could get an amazing machine for the same price?

Insted of companies trying to find other ways to make/sell games they try to force the people buying their games to buy their way. I hope all these guys go under no one should treat the consumer this way.

What do you guys think do we need to change the way we buy games?

#2 Posted by Video_Game_King (35982 posts) -

@banishedsoul1 said:

Games should be priced on what you get for them.

That sounds difficult, given the variance in play times. Isn't it more based on the budget invested into the production of the game, along with costs associated with that?

#3 Posted by JoeyRavn (4948 posts) -

@banishedsoul1 said:

Games should be priced on what you get for them.

That is extremely hard to calculate. Jeff played through Diablo 3 once in Normal and never touched the game again. I've sunk more than 100 hours on it across many playthroughs and characters. How would you price that game? You either overprice or underprice the game.

#4 Posted by banishedsoul1 (294 posts) -

What i ment is the game sould be based off the quailty you get for them. Lolipop chainsaw is a budget game that is very short. Why did it cost me 50$? How can bizzard make a game like diablo 3 for the same price? Time was just an example of some thing they should consider.

#5 Edited by believer258 (11628 posts) -

I've always been under the impression that Hondas are relatively reliable and decent cars...

Anyway, video game pricing model. Yes, I think it's bad, and I think that some games like Bulletstorm and Singulariity could have done a lot better if they had been slapped with a $40 price tag from get-go, but I also think that part of the problem is advertising, and this is a part that isn't often brought up.

Call of Duty the Umpteenth and Madden Gazillion will get the budget of some games put into advertising alone and everyone knows the name, but you'd only know the names "Bulletstorm" and "Singularity" and "Prototype" if you really keep up with gaming news, and even then those names tend to drop off the radar pretty soon.

I think that the industry would be better off if that advertising money were better spread around between games so that newer things and newer franchises could get more exposure.

Again, though, I'll point to Valve's business as something this hardheaded fucking industry could really, really learn from.

EDIT: I also think the industry could do with not trying to make every single game as pretty as the next Crysis. Call of Duty isn't very pretty but it runs at 60 FPS and is the most popular game series in the world at the moment, so we could do with some better management of budget and resources.

#6 Edited by BestUsernameEver (4825 posts) -

Free to play is the new model. Meaning you pay more to get more out of it, it seems to work right now, we'll see.

#7 Posted by SethPhotopoulos (5095 posts) -

Well the argument is a bit complicated the way you constructed it. To say that a 6 hour game should be cost less than a 60 hour game is odd. There is more content in a 60 hour game but it could be more repetitive and some people may think the 6 hour game has more depth and is better constructed than the 60 hour game. That would mean that to those people the 6 hour game is worth more than the 60 hour game. Maybe the developers or the publisher's think that the 10 hour game that was created was worth the full $60 even if you don't think so. (I know most dev teams don't come up with the price.) It should be based more on the budget given to the development of the individual game.

#8 Posted by BraveToaster (12590 posts) -

@banishedsoul1 said:

Why does a 60 hour game cost as much as a 6 hour game? Games should be priced on what you get for them. If a farrari costs the same as a Honda what would you pick?

Huh? Just because a game is long doesn't mean it is good (and vice versa). Length doesn't equal quality, so your Ferrari/Honda example doesn't work.

#9 Posted by Jimbo (9772 posts) -

@Video_Game_King said:

@banishedsoul1 said:

Games should be priced on what you get for them.

That sounds difficult, given the variance in play times. Isn't it more based on the budget invested into the production of the game, along with costs associated with that?

Not really, no.

#10 Posted by Video_Game_King (35982 posts) -

@Jimbo:

Than what is pricing based on? Pure supply and demand? I imagine the cost of developing a product has to play some role in determing the price at which it is sold.

#11 Posted by Grillbar (1796 posts) -

i think there should be a max you can sell you game for but anything under is fair game, its pretty much what already is. selling a game cheaper may incline more people to take the risk. may be a good way to start of a new ip or someting. but what do i know anything

#12 Edited by theManUnknown (151 posts) -

The thing is, the value of any piece of media is one of the most difficult things to quantify I have ever come across. This ultimately reflects the fact that whether a work of art is good or not is likewise one of the most fickle, contentious, contested, and ultimately frustrating conversations in which one can ever have the misfortune to participate. As an grand example, the current most expensive painting in the world was sold for over 250 million dollars. Would you have paid that much for it?

Even at a more mundane level, you can perceive sharp distinctions in perceptions of quality within the this very community. The list of Giant Bomb's favorite games is undoubtedly as eclectic as it is lengthy, and a fundamental cause of many members' frustrations with this site's staff is likely that they simply differ in taste so greatly. I have never bought a Call of Duty game, nor am I likely to purchase one anytime soon; indeed, I would be hard pressed to buy it for even $5. Clearly, there are a lot of people out there who disagree with me in this fiscal assessment.

Beyond this, there's the fact that qualities such as the game's length, its genre, its mechanics, its story/plot/characters, and its replayability value all can have seemingly unpredictable affects on the game's quality. Would Braid or Big Rigs or Citizen Kane or Plan 9 from Outer Space or have been any better were they hundreds of hours longer? I sincerely doubt it. In many ways you're paying for an experience more than anything else, and the point at which that experience should end is always going to be difficult to pin down.

But even complicating matters further is the fact that the same amount of money carries a drastically different weight person to person. As a typically poor college student, I suspect $60 means a lot more to me than it does to, say, Bill Gates.

Ultimately I can only say that those who appreciate a work of art should compensate its artist. In an ideal world, people would buy games for no more or less than they were able, and relative to the magnitude of their appreciation. But ultimately that's not possible: you can't really know how much you appreciate a game until you've thoroughly played it, and if you're already playing it, you clearly haven't bought it.

But I think Steam as yet comes closest to emulating this ideal through advance usage of price discrimination. Let those who value the game as worth $60 pay as much for it at launch; those who don't can instead pay with time, waiting until the game should drop to a price they do find acceptable.

#13 Posted by lavaman77 (567 posts) -

Skyrim would cost 1000$.

#14 Posted by captain_clayman (3318 posts) -

they should be tiered. games that aren't triple A but are higher budget than xbla games should be around 40 to start. the price of a game should correspond to the budget that was spent making it.

#15 Edited by Doctorchimp (4069 posts) -

@banishedsoul1: Why would anyone go see a short movie?

For the same price they can watch a 3 hour movie.

#16 Posted by tourgen (4427 posts) -

some of it is about perception. Pricing a game at $40 is like saying, "yeah, it's not all that great and doesn't have the scope and scale of a Real $60 game. Go ahead and pre-order, or not, whatever." When so much of the industry is about convincing people to buy a product before they can evaluate it's quality you don't want to give any hint up front that it's not a top tier product.

Things are starting to change though so who knows. Torchlight II seems like it is doing alright with pre-orders at $20. But a "full" console game, on a disk? No way.

#17 Posted by Jimbo (9772 posts) -

@Video_Game_King said:

@Jimbo:

Than what is pricing based on? Pure supply and demand? I imagine the cost of developing a product has to play some role in determing the price at which it is sold.

Actual pricing is based on whatever you think will lead to the most profit (unless you have some secondary consideration: loss leading, goodwill, whatever). All your costs will tell you is what you would at least like to get for it, and (by comparing to what you do get for it) whether it was worth doing.

You won't set your price artificially low just because your costs will low, and the market won't let you jack your prices up just because your costs were higher.

source: bitter experience.

#18 Edited by Grumbel (910 posts) -

The whole "hours per dollar" measurement of a games worth it complete bullshit, $60 is perfectly fine for a 6h game if the 6h are actually that good. To many games however tend to stick to the $60 where a $40 might be more fitting. There is no reason why there shouldn't be more price tiers between the $60 full price games and the $5-15 indie titles.
 
That aside, I also kind of worry about the long term impact of Steam sales and game bundles. If you can wait a year, games these days are cheaper then ever and you rarely have to pay more then $5-10 for anything. On top of that you have the indie bundles where you get games for less then $1. For me personally that means I'll probably never again by a game for $60 and I haven't for quite some years. Indie games are also a no-buy for me when new, as I know I'll get them a few month done the line thrown in a bundle.  All this means that there might be an erosion of a games worth and if more people get used to all those cheap sales that really could turn into a big issue, as games might no longer sell all that well at $60 and the drastically reduced sales prices might not be enough to sustain a developer. Not sure if it's already a problem, as there still seem to be enough people left who always want the latest stuff. There is also the effect that people end up buying much more games on sale then they would full price, so the money that flows into the industry might not be reduced by as much as the sales price might make it look like. But either way, especially with technological progress getting slower and console cycles longer I could see new $60 games having a hard time competing with the $5 discounts. Also see iPhones, where games above $10 are already considered overpriced. Will be interesting to see how this will all turn out in a few years.
 
This is of course also not just a game issue, with physical media fading and things going digital, there is no longer the event of things going "out of print" which used to free the market place for new stuff. So if everything stays in print forever, everything new has to complete with everything old and it's basically just marketing that makes the difference.

#19 Posted by zudthespud (3281 posts) -

@banishedsoul1 said:

But things is just the market reacting to every game being priced at 59,99. Why does a 60 hour game cost as much as a 6 hour game? Games should be priced on what you get for them. If a ferrari costs the same as a Honda what would you pick? why would anyone pick the cheap honda when they could get an amazing machine for the same price?

I accept this premise, but you also seem to be implying that if the Honda lasts longer than the Ferrari it should be worth more.

How could games be priced on quality or length? It's totally implausible, what are they going to do, give advanced copies to game reviewers just so they can say "It's shit" or "It's 6 hours long" and sell it for $20 instead of $60? Why would they do this? Games sell plenty well at full price anyway.

People buy games because they feel like they are worth what they are paying. If I see a game that I wouldn't mind playing, but it's way too expensive, I don't buy it. Recent example, Diablo 3 is still £33 on Amazon. I'm not going to pay that for a game I'm just kind of interested in.

If people really felt ripped off they would stop buying games at release and wait until they fall in price. If you can't control yourself and need to buy every game day 1 then the games companies have you by the balls and they won't do anything because you are going to buy it anyway.

#20 Posted by Demoskinos (14559 posts) -

@banishedsoul1: Lollipop Chainsaw is HARDLY a budget game. It has huge talent working on it and its backed by a major movie studio in Warner Brothers. And personally I was fine with what I paid for it Quality always trumps quantity. I'd rather have a game be short and end and leave me wanting more than them contriving reasons to pad the game out.

#21 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@JoeyRavn said:

@banishedsoul1 said:

Games should be priced on what you get for them.

That is extremely hard to calculate. Jeff played through Diablo 3 once in Normal and never touched the game again. I've sunk more than 100 hours on it across many playthroughs and characters. How would you price that game? You either overprice or underprice the game.

Yeah. Also, things aren't usually sold at the price the consumer wants, but that the production requires. And having games at a different random price every time a new one came out would be annoying. Better to know that games cost $60, often $50 on PC, $40 as a budget, and $5, $10, or $15 if they are downloadable, depending on the scale of the project. It's already a lot of different numbers, imagine if it was all calculated based on amount of content and shit. Besides, I paid $15 bucks for Journey, and fucking loved the hell out of it, was super glad I spent that much money on a game that took like, an hour to beat. On the other hand, Dear Esther cost me the same I believe, lasted a little longer, and yet I thought it was total shit, didn't enjoy it, etc. I don't think it was worth $15. Or $10. It should have been $5 at most, if you ask me. So no, the number of hours isn't what should decide a game's price. Because then Skyrim would be crazy expensive, and games like Journey would cost $0.99.

And if the game was good enough to buy, you'll probably replay it again, and 5 bucks an hour is about the least you can spend per hour to do anything that actually costs money to do anyway, so stop whining. If you don't have money, you'll have to wait, but that's what you get for being a lazy jobless shmuck! Well, no, but you'll still survive just fine. I did.

#22 Posted by sqweebel (6 posts) -

Every single game I buy is used, because of what you said. The gaming companies are money whores and deserve no special treatment.

#23 Posted by captain_max707 (479 posts) -

It's important to keep in mind that even though a AAA game like Call of Duty generally has a 4-6 hour campaign and a multiplayer which may or may not hook you, it took over 100 people to make that product. The production costs, plus advertising, plus pressing discs, plus employee pay, paying for a place to work, paying the publisher, all of this adds up pretty quickly. So they charge 60 bucks. 
 
Why this keeps happening is because this is what the market will accept. We often complain about games being a bit too much, but we buy them anyway, so they keep the costs as high as possible. There's nothing really wrong with it, as like I said, the market accepts that price.  
 
As for the whole money to time debate, I like to use that as a way of evaluating my purchases after the fact. For example, I paid 20 bucks for Team Fortress 2 a couple of years ago. I've logged just over 800 hours. Pretty good investment if you ask me. Does that mean all $20 games should entertain me that much? No, it just means I made a good call and use that insight in future purchases.

#24 Posted by Turambar (6673 posts) -
@banishedsoul1 said:

I often hear companies like EA trying to block used games. Companies also seem to cry about games that are not AAA quailty not selling that well. But things is just the market reacting to every game being priced at 59,99. Why does a 60 hour game cost as much as a 6 hour game? Games should be priced on what you get for them. If a farrari costs the same as a Honda what would you pick? why would anyone pick the cheap honda when they could get an amazing machine for the same price?

Insted of companies trying to find other ways to make/sell games they try to force the people buying their games to buy their way. I hope all these guys go under no one should treat the consumer this way.

What do you guys think do we need to change the way we buy games?

Because there is no such thing as a complete consensus on game quality.  Having a developer's bonus be dependent on Metacritic scores is already fucked up.  Do we really want to give that arbitrary score even more weight?
#25 Posted by 2HeadedNinja (1539 posts) -

I was always and will always be of the opinion that especially on the PC and expecially with games available digital the price should always be 30€/$/whatever for a new release. The first publisher that figures that out will have a major success with that pricing. 30 is kind of a magical threshold where people view this as "budget" ... and people are more likely to buy budget games.

#26 Posted by pyromagnestir (4236 posts) -

@MordeaniisChaos said:

@JoeyRavn said:

@banishedsoul1 said:

Games should be priced on what you get for them.

That is extremely hard to calculate. Jeff played through Diablo 3 once in Normal and never touched the game again. I've sunk more than 100 hours on it across many playthroughs and characters. How would you price that game? You either overprice or underprice the game.

Yeah. Also, things aren't usually sold at the price the consumer wants, but that the production requires. And having games at a different random price every time a new one came out would be annoying. Better to know that games cost $60, often $50 on PC, $40 as a budget, and $5, $10, or $15 if they are downloadable, depending on the scale of the project. It's already a lot of different numbers, imagine if it was all calculated based on amount of content and shit. Besides, I paid $15 bucks for Journey, and fucking loved the hell out of it, was super glad I spent that much money on a game that took like, an hour to beat. On the other hand, Dear Esther cost me the same I believe, lasted a little longer, and yet I thought it was total shit, didn't enjoy it, etc. I don't think it was worth $15. Or $10. It should have been $5 at most, if you ask me. So no, the number of hours isn't what should decide a game's price. Because then Skyrim would be crazy expensive, and games like Journey would cost $0.99.

And if the game was good enough to buy, you'll probably replay it again, and 5 bucks an hour is about the least you can spend per hour to do anything that actually costs money to do anyway, so stop whining. If you don't have money, you'll have to wait, but that's what you get for being a lazy jobless shmuck! Well, no, but you'll still survive just fine. I did.

Yeah. Is 60, 50, 40 really that bad? And if you wait, oh, say 6 months most games can be had for half of what they were originally.

#27 Posted by NoobSauceG7 (1232 posts) -

I think that we are getting close to a point where the middle B-tier games like Bulletstorm and Prototype are not going to exist in the forms they do now. We will have the $60 Mass Effects and Call of Dutys and other big AAA titles, but now we also have downloadable $10-15 titles that are not trying to compete at the same type of scope as like a Skyrim.

Think of Trials Evolution. That is an absolutely great game and is a very easy title about feeing good for buying for $15. If it was in a box and was $60 and was the exact game that they had for download, I would not feel so good about buying it. But it is not so most developers who make downloadable games know what their boundaries are as a downloadable title and you usually feel like the money you spent on the game was not a waste.

These downloadable games allow developers to try new ideas without putting too much resources into the game so it is a perfect place to get a game that is a new IP and shows off new concepts without being too much of a risk for a company.

Generally though, most games do not last more than a month as a $60 game. They typically do go down to $40 and less as time goes on. This shows that not every game is a $60 game. Take Syndicate for example. I bought this week for $30 and am loving it. I don't think of the price every time I play a game but there must of been some reason I didn't buy it for $60.

#28 Posted by Village_Guy (2491 posts) -

Paying for what you is getting would be an impossible thing to measure out - some people play the Call of Duty games for hundred of hours, so should they pay 200 bucks for it every year? And should the people who maybe plays a few hours of multiplayer and the campaign pay 20 bucks for it? The quality of a games content is entirely subjective.

Also you say you wish the guys who enforces the price to go under, but if that happened we wouldn't get many games at all, publishers are needed for the vast majority of games. And you aren't entitled to pay what you want for a game, it isn't a buyers market. Nobody forces you to buy any games "their way", if you don''t want to pay for the game, then don't play the game - and on the same note, don't rent it, buy it used or pirate it - because doing any of those things doesn't give the publisher any reason to support the game or any future games by the developer - and while you might play the game for a lower price, it ends up hurting the developer in the end, not just the publisher.

The only solution to the problem seems to be to introduce additional tiers of pricing, but that won't happen, because then a lot of people won't buy the game because it costs 40 bucks instead of 60 - therefor it must be a bad game and not worth the money - why do you think the Activision Value label (or whatever they called it) went away?

No, it wasn't because Activision is greedy and want 60 dollars for every game - not only that at least - but the games that was priced lower from the get go, sold less to the general public, simply because it gave the perception that the game was bad since it was cheaper than other new games.

#29 Posted by ProfessorK (816 posts) -

the only thing at this point that could drive down the price of games is a massive shift in how many copies of games actualy sell. meaning if we as consumers spoke with our wallets and stoped purchasing games as much then developers would take notice.
hell it's already happening to some extent with a rise in gamers buying more downloadable games whether they be IOS or what have you. retailers are taking notice.

#30 Edited by Hunter5024 (5536 posts) -

I would just like to say that the nebulous price model does not work in the consumers favor. In Japan all this means is the popular games are released at a much higher price because they know they can get away with it. And it would be awesome if games like say Asura's Wrath came out at a 40 dollar price tag, because everyone's just going to buy it used or rent it if it's that expensive, but that's just not how companies would operate, because while we know that we're not going to buy Asura's Wrath for 60 bucks, they're just playing a guessing game.

@believer258 said:

I've always been under the impression that Hondas are relatively reliable and decent cars...

Anyway, video game pricing model. Yes, I think it's bad, and I think that some games like Bulletstorm and Singulariity could have done a lot better if they had been slapped with a $40 price tag from get-go, but I also think that part of the problem is advertising, and this is a part that isn't often brought up.

Call of Duty the Umpteenth and Madden Gazillion will get the budget of some games put into advertising alone and everyone knows the name, but you'd only know the names "Bulletstorm" and "Singularity" and "Prototype" if you really keep up with gaming news, and even then those names tend to drop off the radar pretty soon.

I think that the industry would be better off if that advertising money were better spread around between games so that newer things and newer franchises could get more exposure.

Again, though, I'll point to Valve's business as something this hardheaded fucking industry could really, really learn from.

EDIT: I also think the industry could do with not trying to make every single game as pretty as the next Crysis. Call of Duty isn't very pretty but it runs at 60 FPS and is the most popular game series in the world at the moment, so we could do with some better management of budget and resources.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Except for the valve part, if everyone takes that long iterating on their games most games would never get released and the industry would evolve at a staggeringly low pace due to only having 5 games released a year.

#31 Posted by gaminghooligan (1406 posts) -

What needs to happen (excuse me if this has been said) is to stop setting all new games at 60 dollars, games like Asuras Wrath have way to hard of a time selling new copies at 60 because consumers are afraid to purchase something they've never heard of. At like 40 dollars I think many more would pick it up and check it out.

#32 Posted by MikeGosot (3227 posts) -

I think i'm on the minority here, but i prefer SHORT games. I almost never finish long games, because they are slower(Most of them, anyway.), and i get bored, and mainly because i don't have much time. So how would you price games for me?
Besides, price influences on how people see your product, because people relate "More expensive" with "better". It's fucking stupid, but i bet you would be cautious too, if a game was released for 20$ in it's launch day.

#33 Posted by AlexW00d (6180 posts) -

In some areas yeah; it's mostly the big pubs like EA and Activision though. If you look at the new releases on PC, when Alan Wake came out that game was like £20 brand new, and that was a great price for it as a lot of people who had already bought it for xbox saw it cheap enough to rebuy, and it got a lot of new sales - enough to make it's money back in less than 48 hours. But then some games come out at like £40, which is 33% more than the regular MSRP of a PC game, and that's dumb.

It really does depend though, but I feel it's generally fine on Steam.

#34 Posted by Brodehouse (9576 posts) -

You realize you can just not buy a game if you don't like what it costs. No, of course you have to buy it and then get mad that they made you buy it.

#35 Posted by SethPhotopoulos (5095 posts) -

@gaminghooligan said:

What needs to happen (excuse me if this has been said) is to stop setting all new games at 60 dollars, games like Asuras Wrath have way to hard of a time selling new copies at 60 because consumers are afraid to purchase something they've never heard of. At like 40 dollars I think many more would pick it up and check it out.

I heard somewhere (I can't remember where) that Asura's Wrath was $60 because they knew that it was a niche game and it wouldn't sell all that well but they knew that the people in that niche would pay full price for it.

#36 Posted by DelroyLindo (387 posts) -

I very rarely pay more than £20 for a game. Most, if not all, games are considerably cheaper if you just wait a month. It's only stuff like call of duty that maintains its price.

#37 Edited by mandude (2669 posts) -

@pyromagnestir said:

Yeah. Is 60, 50, 40 really that bad? And if you wait, oh, say 6 months most games can be had for half of what they were originally.

6 year old me disagrees with your sentiments. Even 16 year old me disagrees with you. Current me has no qualms, unless it's a slow month, but still; I'm going to stand by my former selves here.

Maybe it's due to the fact that they're not selling individual copies in the same way physical goods are sold. A single car can either make a profit or a loss. If it's not priced right, no one will buy it, and not only will they have not made money off of it, but they will have actively lost money on what it cost to produce. They have to price it right. If a single copy of a game doesn't sell, the most they can lose is the costs of a disc. So yeah, entirely broken on a consumer end, but the same incentive to fix it isn't there.

#38 Edited by Ben_H (3306 posts) -

It is broken but because people keep accepting it how it is, it will never change. 
 
I for one never will pay $60 for a game unless I know I will get many hours out of it. I don't care how good a game is, if I can the main story/campaign in one day then it is not worth $60 to me. The only games I've paid $60 for in the last year is Forza 4 (because I love Forza games. I have around 60 hours of driving into it, and still have over half the game left), Skyrim (I played over $300 hours of Oblivion so I knew I would like Skyrim. I'm currently at 150 hours and haven't finished the main story yet), Diablo 3 (I have 60 hours on my Barbarian alone) and Battlefield 3 (I thought I would like it. I dislike that game and hate what they have done to one of my favourite franchises).

Online
#39 Posted by C2C (855 posts) -

@banishedsoul1: You asked some deceptively complex questions here.

Why does a 60 hour game cost as much as a 6 hour game? Games should be priced on what you get for them.

Ideally, prices should be that. However we do not live in an ideal world. So in the real world prices are set by the companies in the hopes to maximize profit, and we essentially lower and raise prices by buying the games or not buying the games. (I am also making the assumption that those play hours have the same amount of quality to them.)

If a farrari costs the same as a Honda what would you pick? why would anyone pick the cheap honda when they could get an amazing machine for the same price?

I would pick the Honda. Ferraris are a pain to maintain, and insurance is also rather expensive for them. Shoot, I don't even want to know if the gas mileage is worth it at that point.

...they try to force the people buying their games to buy their way. I hope all these guys go under no one should treat the consumer this way.

Well, all companies do this to some extent. This isn't something that is exclusive to the game industry. I don't understand your point here.

What do you guys think do we need to change the way we buy games?

There has already been some neat changes in the form of free to play games and the way Steam conducts business. It's really up to the consumers at this point to vote with their wallet.

#40 Posted by believer258 (11628 posts) -

@Hunter5024 said:

I would just like to say that the nebulous price model does not work in the consumers favor. In Japan all this means is the popular games are released at a much higher price because they know they can get away with it. And it would be awesome if games like say Asura's Wrath came out at a 40 dollar price tag, because everyone's just going to buy it used or rent it if it's that expensive, but that's just not how companies would operate, because while we know that we're not going to buy Asura's Wrath for 60 bucks, they're just playing a guessing game.

@believer258 said:

I've always been under the impression that Hondas are relatively reliable and decent cars...

Anyway, video game pricing model. Yes, I think it's bad, and I think that some games like Bulletstorm and Singulariity could have done a lot better if they had been slapped with a $40 price tag from get-go, but I also think that part of the problem is advertising, and this is a part that isn't often brought up.

Call of Duty the Umpteenth and Madden Gazillion will get the budget of some games put into advertising alone and everyone knows the name, but you'd only know the names "Bulletstorm" and "Singularity" and "Prototype" if you really keep up with gaming news, and even then those names tend to drop off the radar pretty soon.

I think that the industry would be better off if that advertising money were better spread around between games so that newer things and newer franchises could get more exposure.

Again, though, I'll point to Valve's business as something this hardheaded fucking industry could really, really learn from.

EDIT: I also think the industry could do with not trying to make every single game as pretty as the next Crysis. Call of Duty isn't very pretty but it runs at 60 FPS and is the most popular game series in the world at the moment, so we could do with some better management of budget and resources.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Except for the valve part, if everyone takes that long iterating on their games most games would never get released and the industry would evolve at a staggeringly low pace due to only having 5 games released a year.

Yeah, I always seem to forget their shitty release schedule, though they've gotten better about that over the years. Left 4 Dead, L4D2, Portal, and Portal 2 have all released within the same generation and Counter Strike GO is about to come out as well. Granted, there is that one little project that a handful of their fans have been crying for...

#41 Posted by Hunter5024 (5536 posts) -

@believer258 said:

Yeah, I always seem to forget their shitty release schedule, though they've gotten better about that over the years. Left 4 Dead, L4D2, Portal, and Portal 2 have all released within the same generation and Counter Strike GO is about to come out as well. Granted, there is that one little project that a handful of their fans have been crying for...

Yes... Ricochet 2. One day they'll wise up.

#42 Posted by Still_I_Cry (2494 posts) -

Your avatar is cute.

I wish games were cheaper but it costs a lot to make them unfortunately.

#43 Posted by SlapHappyJesus (120 posts) -

I think production cost is the most important thing to look at when talking about 'fair' pricing of videogames.

A fun, yet inexpensively produced game has a lot less risk tied to it than a title with a much higher budget. It's a lot easier to cover the cost of the first than it is the second, so it is reasonable to price it lower, considering you are much more likely to cover costs and make profit.

Most other things go by a player to player basis.

#44 Posted by banishedsoul1 (294 posts) -

@C2C said:

@banishedsoul1: You asked some deceptively complex questions here.

Why does a 60 hour game cost as much as a 6 hour game? Games should be priced on what you get for them.

Ideally, prices should be that. However we do not live in an ideal world. So in the real world prices are set by the companies in the hopes to maximize profit, and we essentially lower and raise prices by buying the games or not buying the games. (I am also making the assumption that those play hours have the same amount of quality to them.)

If a farrari costs the same as a Honda what would you pick? why would anyone pick the cheap honda when they could get an amazing machine for the same price?

I would pick the Honda. Ferraris are a pain to maintain, and insurance is also rather expensive for them. Shoot, I don't even want to know if the gas mileage is worth it at that point.

...they try to force the people buying their games to buy their way. I hope all these guys go under no one should treat the consumer this way.

Well, all companies do this to some extent. This isn't something that is exclusive to the game industry. I don't understand your point here.

What do you guys think do we need to change the way we buy games?

There has already been some neat changes in the form of free to play games and the way Steam conducts business. It's really up to the consumers at this point to vote with their wallet.

Trying to block used games is anti consumer. People buy used because games are expensive new. 60$ plus tax and thats in north america which gets the best prices. Then they try to shove DLC down our necks like capcom that sells you content thats already on the disc. Just because its not exclusive to gaming does not make it okay. Used games are so big because of the broken polocies the market is respending to the high prices with a strong second hand market.

#45 Posted by AndrewB (7487 posts) -

I've always thought the $60 price point was crazy, and have practically never bought anything at that price. I also think there are just too many games being made. I feel like these days, not even a perpetually unemployed person with a somehow limitless amount of cash would even have the time to play everything there is, even just including all of the good titles.

#46 Posted by ddensel (371 posts) -

I think the model is broken if you buy games right when they come out. I always wait a while and wait for the prices of a new game to come down to below $40 (usually with all the DLC included too) Games depreciate in value so quickly, and I never feel like I get $60 worth out of them.

I guess I pay for a game with both time and money if I wait, but I don't mind. Wait 6 months after a game comes out, and gaming really isn't that expensive of a hobby.

#47 Posted by C2C (855 posts) -

@banishedsoul1 said:

@C2C said:

...they try to force the people buying their games to buy their way. I hope all these guys go under no one should treat the consumer this way.

Well, all companies do this to some extent. This isn't something that is exclusive to the game industry. I don't understand your point here.

Trying to block used games is anti consumer. People buy used because games are expensive new. 60$ plus tax and thats in north america which gets the best prices. Then they try to shove DLC down our necks like capcom that sells you content thats already on the disc. Just because its not exclusive to gaming does not make it okay. Used games are so big because of the broken polocies the market is respending to the high prices with a strong second hand market.

I agree that trying to block the secondary used game market is very anti-consumer. The problem here, from a producers point of view, is that it creates a situation where your customers become your competitor after a short amount of time because they can sell your own game at a lower price. One way for a producer to react is to put themselves in an "all in situation" in the first couple of days/weeks of release due to the lack of demand the used market causes later on. This all in situation causes producers to bet on less risky/exciting games because people tend to buy more from franchises they know. I would guess that the $60 price point is a reaction to this situation as well.

However the producers on console have been kind of dumb with DLC to be quite honest. They pull on disc DLC shenanigans with a $60 price point. A smarter, and more pro-consumer, way to approach the used game situation is to sell the game at a lower price, then sell a bunch of DLC.