Do you think video games are over priced?

Over here in the UK I do think games are over-priced. I'm sure if you were paying up to £45 for Xbox 360 games in the US it would be considered way too expensive.

Definitely. I buy maybe one or two games new every year and the rest are bought used and/or rented. Fuck the used sales hurts the market argument, I'm not paying 60 for wolverine.

This is a carbon copy of another thread where I tried to make people see sense but fuck it, if they cannot understand that they are actually paying less percentage-wise for games than they are standard DVDs, that's there own fucking problem.

Game prices are absolutely fine at $60 from a consumer level, and from a business level they could stand to go up a few dollars, making your money back on a $60 retail is becoming harder and harder given the icnreased costs and the fact you only see $22 - 32 of that $60 (rest is used up in production, or paid to Sony/MS/Nintendo or used to pay for the distribution. Of each $60 disc, Sony/MS/Nintendo take $8, and distributor and store at least $3 each), and that's only if the game sells for full price, often it doesn't and you have to slash the price and re-sell unsold stock that has been returned to manufacturer by stores.

Hmm well they are more expensive here in the UK but I still think I get what I pay for. Will I get £55 worth of entertainment out of MW2? Yeah. Cloverfield on Blu-ray cost me £15 and I've got 2-3 hours of entertainment out of it, so in terms of hours, games are better. I also don't mind supporting the industry. So no, I dont think they are too expensive.

No.  US it's $60 for a new PS3 game.

Here in Japan it's $80-100 depending on the game.  MGS4 was $95 for the normal edition.

So no, I don't think games are over priced in the States but rather under priced and should be up to the same price as the rest of the world.

Edit:  So, apparently you can get 50/50 with 7 votes....

Sure sony/microsoft/nintendo dont make a profit on thier consoles but disks are so cheap to make. I reckon games should cost £30

"@The_A_Drain: Ohh man sorry dude. I did a search to see if another thread like this was already on and the search came up empty. I thought to myself that it was odd no one has started a thread about this issue. "

"Sure sony/microsoft/nintendo dont make a profit on thier consoles but disks are so cheap to make. I reckon games should cost £30"

No, I just can't afford them.

I'm buying less console games and more handheld games.

Overall, I am spending much, much less on console games. Either waiting it out for a price drop or used copy.

This usually means that Gamestop and other stores are making the money, not the publisher.

Do I care if the publisher makes less to no money on the copies that I buy?

HELL NO.


On that note, it has been years since I purchased an actual DVD on film. I think the whole argument of "DVD films are more expensive so game prices are fine" is SILLY.

Hell, why don't we throw in the music biz, the print magazine biz, books and other media into the mix as well?

We don't do that for a reason. It's absolutely irrelevant!


EDIT: The whole international price argument is silly as well. Japan and UK (at the very least) living costs are higher than the US from my knowledge. Almost everything costs more.



I think, the $60 price point is okay, but I think there is a reason why the PS2 and the Wii, are still selling quite well. The (good) games are the same quality, they are just cheaper.

That $10 hike is hurting NEW game sales on the PS3 and 360, while consumers are buying USED game more and more.

"@The_A_Drain: I hate so much about the things you choose to be......"

the crappy ones are :)

$60 for a game? No, I don't think that is overpriced, as long as I can get my money's worth out of it.

Do I think they are overpriced? No. They have been in the same price range in the USA for over 10 years and have only gone up $10 with this current gen of consoles being the 360 and PS3. Games are regularly priced at $60, where as "greatest hits" tend to be around the $20/$30 range. Genesis games were $50 bucks new and would eventually drop to 20 if not less and the same still happens. Kids now a days also have the ability of renting online for a monthly fee compared to a weekend or 3 days for $5, where you most likely wouldn't get a complete playthrough unless it was short to average length of a title.

Crappy games are annoying but fortunately there is the internet as well now and buying a game on release for something unknown like a new IP or something that you didnt demo may result in a poor decision, wait a few days read reviews and then bite the bullet. Find a game which you can replay if you aren't employed and need it to last a while.

A game like Ratchet and Clank Future. only had a single player mode that lasts 4 hours. 60 bucks. overpriced

I think $60 bucks is a fair price for the current gen games. I've bought a few games that I was glad I didn't pay the full price for, I'm a cheap bastard when it comes to most of my games >.>. It all depends on the person really, I think paying full price for an 8 hour game is ridiculous, unless it was a absolute blast for all 8 hours, but that's only because I play a lot of RPGs that last at least 40 hours.

Here's my take on the matter. $60 is only a $10 increase from what games use to be. However, I almost never pay full price for a game these days and I refuse to buy used games. The thing is... these days, games are dropping in price faster than ever. You wait six months and nearly every game is knocked down by $20-30. That's awesome. I can't say that applies to every console. I know that certainly isn't the case with Wii games, but Nintendo has always been one to keep the price of their games high as long as possible. 360 and PS3 owners certainly get to save some money with just a little bit of patience. The games that are overpriced these days are the limited edition ones. Most of that stuff is kind of a waste of money anyway, so if you're going to buy any special edition version of a game, just be aware that you're almost always paying more than you should. I also think DS games are overpriced, but with a little searching, you can find a lot of them on sale.

some of them, yes.

"@Animateria:No the DVD comparison is not silly at all, they are both products that have similar outgoings and costs, as well as similar target audiences as well as being depentant on consumer reception to sell. The only major difference is that they don't have to come with a manual, and you don't have to pay Sony/MS/Nintendo $8 per disc. They can also afford to drop the price because they are turning profit per disc in most cases, having made most if not all of their budget at the box offices.The percentages however remain the same for the cost breakdown, hence it's a comparable product. And you really should care that the developer sees no money from your purchases, because it's doing them legitimate damage whether you want to see it or not. I'm not about to sit here and condemn the used games market, but I am going to point out that games manufacturers have a HUGE budget to recoup, and it's just not possible on a lower retail price. "

Let's say going to the movies cost you, I don't know, $20. That move is 2 and a half hours long. During that time, you spent $20 to be entertained for 2 and a half hours. Let's say you buy a video game for $60, and it promises 20 hours of entertainment. By purchasing that video game, you will have multiplied the time you are entertained by 8 times for only 3 times as much money, and you can experience those 20 hours again and again. So yeah, I'd say it's a pretty good deal.

I think that made sense.

Were any of you alive for the year 1990? That year, Super Mario Bros. 3 came out and cost 90 U.S. dollars before taxes. 90 dollars 20 years ago is way more than 60 dollars is today. You also have to consider that the base unit of the cost of labour (AKA minimum wage, AKA the basis for all economic costs) has increased. We are paying far less for something that cost far more to make.

And to the people trying to argue that since a disc is cheap to burn, the game should be cheap to sell. Well, if that were the case, all they'd sell us is blank discs, but guess what? THE COST OF PRODUCING A GAME IS A COST THE DEVELOPERS AND PUBLISHERS NEED TO RECOUP AS WELL.

I have to say that when one considers the rate of inflation, as well as the exponential increase in the cost of producing games over the last 2 decades, 60 bucks is pretty darn cheap.

Put it this way, it costs you about 8 and a quarter hours of unskilled labour to be able to afford one game. Now multiply that labour input by the sales of whichever title. Let's take something that did marginally well, let's say... Dead Space. It sold 337 000 copies. So, 337 000 multiplied by 8 and a quarter hours of unskilled labour equals... 2 780 250 hours of unskilled labour. Obviously it took far less than 2.8 million man hours to produce and market Dead Space, but skilled labour costs far more than unskilled labour. You have to consider that the sales of Dead Space have to be commensurate with the cost of input on the production and marketing of Dead Space. (And when I mean 'marketing', I mean bringing the good to market, so that includes shipping as well as advertising. Video game production is a cost-intensive process, the fact that they only charge you the equivalent of 8.27 hours of unskilled labour for their product is a pretty good deal, when you consider the fact it takes far more hours of skilled labour to bring the good to life, and to bring the good to market.

Obviously, in most cases, the amount of hours of labour the game companies receive is greater than they input. This isn't evil, this is profit. We're all trying to obtain more value for our effort than we put in.

Somebody tell me what the minimum wage in Britain is. I'll help you figure out whether or not the cost of the game is actually higher in the U.S. or the U.K., and if so, by how much.

" Let's say going to the movies cost you, I don't know, $20. That move is 2 and a half hours long. During that time, you spent $20 to be entertained for 2 and a half hours. Let's say you buy a video game for $60, and it promises 20 hours of entertainment. By purchasing that video game, you will have multiplied the time you are entertained by 8 times for only 3 times as much money, and you can experience those 20 hours again and again. So yeah, I'd say it's a pretty good deal.I think that made sense. "

Considering most people hardly come out even when it comes to video games, they're not really over priced.

apparently with modern warfare 2 UK game prices will rocket up? Way, way way too much. It's not a question of price, its  a question of value. You'll only spend full price on a really good game these dasys

You're lucky... where i live there are games (like The Darkness) that are still at full price.

What about quality?  People pay $9-15 dollars just to watch one single movie in a theatre for 2 hours compared to enjoying a videogame for decades.  I think the prices are fine because I REALLY take my sweet time doing my research on a game's quality, overall enjoyment and importantly (for this thread), it's overall length.  RPG's are a budget buyer's best friend!

No. Even with their pricing here  in Europe or in other  nations outside of the US, I think videogamers offer a fair amount of hours of entertainment for their price.
Other media are generally more expensive.
I'm fine with video game pricing.

Fuck it, I decided to figure it out for myself
UK: £45 / £5.73 = 7.85 unskilled hours of labour per game
US: $60 / $7.25 = 8.27 unskilled hours of labour per game
ON: $70 / $9.50 = 7.37 unskilled hours of labour per game
JP: ¥7140 / ¥589 = 12.24 unskilled hours of labour per game

So actually, the British have it better than everyone (except us Ontarians). In terms of the true cost of games.

"@natetodamax said:

" Let's say going to the movies cost you, I don't know, $20. That move is 2 and a half hours long. During that time, you spent $20 to be entertained for 2 and a half hours. Let's say you buy a video game for $60, and it promises 20 hours of entertainment. By purchasing that video game, you will have multiplied the time you are entertained by 8 times for only 3 times as much money, and you can experience those 20 hours again and again. So yeah, I'd say it's a pretty good deal.I think that made sense. "

Well, I already think people who buy DVDs are suckers.Why buy something you might watch maybe twice?Like a short game I'd say "Rent it you idiot!?".Hell, I rarely go to the theater for the same reason."

It's a completely qualitative thing. I paid full price for Call of Duty 4 and even with its short campaign, I felt like I got my money's worth and then the fantastic multiplayer was a bonus. Compare that to the typical garbage out there and I get left feeling incredibly ripped off. With a game like Prototype, I can see where all the work has gone in but effort does not always translate into an enjoyable experience.

Yes I think 90$ is too much for a single game.



Thats how it is where I live. I dream of a day when I can buy a game for 60$.

I wish that these polls were less black and white. I don't want just a "Yes" or "No" option. Where's the "Depends" or "Sometimes" option? Sometimes games are overpriced, sometimes they aren't.

Again, it depends.

"@animateria: Yeah, I'm not going to listen to any British person whine about the cost of games in their region ever again."

" @animateria said:

"@natetodamax said:

" Let's say going to the movies cost you, I don't know, $20. That move is 2 and a half hours long. During that time, you spent $20 to be entertained for 2 and a half hours. Let's say you buy a video game for $60, and it promises 20 hours of entertainment. By purchasing that video game, you will have multiplied the time you are entertained by 8 times for only 3 times as much money, and you can experience those 20 hours again and again. So yeah, I'd say it's a pretty good deal.I think that made sense. "

Well, I already think people who buy DVDs are suckers.Why buy something you might watch maybe twice?Like a short game I'd say "Rent it you idiot!?".Hell, I rarely go to the theater for the same reason."

It's a bit much to call people an idiot just because of the way you would act.You might watch a movie twice, I might watch it 100 times. You just don't know, so a products value for money can only be set on a personal level.Same goes for short games, you call me an idiot and tell me to rent it, I tell you to go fuck yourself. I might play that short game through once on each difficulty, and then once again in a years time when i'm bored. That and if you pick up DVDs when they are not brand new, it's cheaper than even renting it, or at least a comparable price. The same cannot be said of games. You think people who buy DVDs are suckers, well, I have something like 150 DVDs and I think they represent decent value for me though they might not for someone else. "

"@The_A_Drain said:

" @animateria said:

"@natetodamax said:

" Let's say going to the movies cost you, I don't know, $20. That move is 2 and a half hours long. During that time, you spent $20 to be entertained for 2 and a half hours. Let's say you buy a video game for $60, and it promises 20 hours of entertainment. By purchasing that video game, you will have multiplied the time you are entertained by 8 times for only 3 times as much money, and you can experience those 20 hours again and again. So yeah, I'd say it's a pretty good deal.I think that made sense. "

Well, I already think people who buy DVDs are suckers.Why buy something you might watch maybe twice?Like a short game I'd say "Rent it you idiot!?".Hell, I rarely go to the theater for the same reason."

It's a bit much to call people an idiot just because of the way you would act.You might watch a movie twice, I might watch it 100 times. You just don't know, so a products value for money can only be set on a personal level.Same goes for short games, you call me an idiot and tell me to rent it, I tell you to go fuck yourself. I might play that short game through once on each difficulty, and then once again in a years time when i'm bored. That and if you pick up DVDs when they are not brand new, it's cheaper than even renting it, or at least a comparable price. The same cannot be said of games. You think people who buy DVDs are suckers, well, I have something like 150 DVDs and I think they represent decent value for me though they might not for someone else. "

Ah, don't take it personally. I wasn't particularly serious about that comment. Either way, I think its a mistake to assume DVD and Videogame purchasers are in the same bracket. Both mediums can have people who buy both, but as you and I disagree of each of their values, there's a lot of people who  probably only buy DVD's or Video games. I can see how someone who thinks a DVD has a good value would see Videogame prices as cheap I suppose."

60 bucks is too much. 50 bucks was just right.