?30 is now a 'Budget Price'!

[Leon Retro]

It's great when you can get new releases for ?29.99 - that's a fair price imo. Whereas Paying ?40-?50 on the other hand...that's a bit much imo. Reminds me of the 16-bit days...

Yeah... I often think about the 16bit days. One of the main issues is that games were still a pretty new medium back then. The market was young, it was cutting-edge, something new and exciting.

I paid a lot of money for certain games I obsessively wanted, but never more than ?50.

Now that the industry is pretty mature, and no longer the amazing new medium it once was, I think lots of people have come down to earth and see games with a much more level headed view.

Why can't people just laugh at their past indulgences in high priced games, and admit that obsession for what was sooo exciting was the reason they paid soooo much.

These days for many reasons, all gamers should come to terms with the reality of game pricing, and realise that anything over ?30 is not really fair!

I don't expect people to stop buying games, but people that do, should know that the pricing is too high.

It's an issue that could be delved into. From what I have read, there are many negative issues raised by the high pricing of games. It seems like only the big names make any money, and creativity is being stifled!

[Sony Fanboy]

Gears of War, Halo3, and the big name PS3 games are going to cost ?40-50. What and where are the big name current gen console titles for less than ?40? That is the price games for the 360 are on release, if you buy online.

So? Shops retailed MGS2 for ?60 and FFX for ?45. Now 4 year later, MGS3 and FFXII will be ?30.

The latest gen games have always been at premium prices.

[Zed]

I dont think comparing prices from 16-bit days is quite fair as the whole entertainment and gadget industry has moved a great deal since then.

Computers/consoles were very rare and unusual back then, now there's all sorts of other media competing for that same dollar/pound stirling. I mean we barely had the capacity to watch movies at home in 16 bit days, nowadays you've got projectors and home cinema, portable DVD players and so on. For the price of a game and 6+ hours play time you do have to consider the alternatives somewhat irrespective of the development cost. To make a decent budget movie still costs more than a decent average game, yet DVD's come out much cheaper and are ?6-8 within a year after release.

But yes if gaymers are willing to pay ?50 for a game then thats what "they" will charge for them.

[Sony Fanboy]

To make a decent budget movie still costs more than a decent average game, yet DVD's come out much cheaper and are ?6-8 within a year after release.

Movies can recoup the cost just from cinema tickets alone. Millions more from cable/satelite rights, and millions more from rights to TV stations around the world everytime it's shown.

And the economies of scale for movies completely overshadows that of games.

For the price of a game and 6+ hours play time you do have to consider the alternatives somewhat irrespective of the development cost.

Where do people keep getting these rediculous playtimes from? It's been shown every year that the average gamer buys 6-7 games per year and plays games for 12 hours/week.

[toy_brain]

I love the ?30 RRP game price we have nowardays, lets me pick up loads more stuff with less of an impact to my wallet, but I have just one question to those of you who think the price is still too high and we are being ripped off.

If the games companies are ripping us all off, then how come companies like Midway, Atari, Take-Two etc are posting regular net losses?
And this isnt something confined just to the console transition period, as many of these companies and more (Majesco and Eidos also spring to mind) posted large losses a couple years ago too.

Are they really being managed that badly? Is it because the market is overcrowded? or is it because profit margains are too tight and many games are not recovering their high production costs?

Personally I don't like paying ?50 for a game, but I'd rather softco's went back to making simpler, smaller (in terms of scope, not play-time) games at a decent price, rather than pouring millions into making a huge magnum-opus that retails for ?50+
Mabye with the current trend for Nintendogs and Brain Training we may see this happen.
Mabye...........

[MikeRox]

With games media now costing mere pennies, and the market bigger than ever, with millions of people eager to buy games, and the status of videogames being much more positive than it has been in the past, the market is flourishing in so many ways, but publishers and retailers are still being far too greedy.

People can disregard price, believe the business hype, or just except that gaming is very expensive, and a bit of a rip-off!

You have to remember though, games only get 1 stab at making all those millions of $ of investment back. It HAS to be done in the first few weeks of release while it's ?40-?50, otherwise a game will probably never break even (and so many dont)

And although the market is bigger, so are the development costs (by a long way)

Yes the media is cheap, but they still have the licensing fees (which were included in the cartridge pricing in the 16 bit era). I think one of the bigger problems is the retailer margins on software. I believe they take around 40% of the price of a game. Developers will often see less than ?2 of that ?50 price tag. It's the whole structure that is wrong and if this was sorted out we would see cheaper games, but games shops struggle to stay in business when the profit margins are so big, what chance have they got with the usual 5-10% profit margin?

The main thing to remember with games is that they are completely different to both the music and movie industry. Games only get one shot at making money (though recently retro games have made a bit of a come back through XBLA and compilations) but on the whole DVD movies ?15-?20? often the film you are buying for that price has already made its money back from cinema showings. Releasing the DVDs is then very very cheap in comparison, and even when the DVD sales dry up they still have Television rights to sell to companies worldwide. Music is similar, radio broadcasts and live gigs also bring in income infact, they bring in more to the actual bands than CD sales often do due to the rediculous fees the record labels take.

Long rambling post but I think I got a point in there somewhere :P Thats why gaming prices aren't really comparable to other "optical media" though.

[Brats]

If anyone finds ?40-50 o.k, that's their choice. I'm just expressing my personal opinion that the high price of console titles isn't justified if you look at things in detail.

'Justified' doesn't even come into the equation. In a market economy, price isn't set at a point which can be justified, it gets set at the point where the supplier can make the most profit. This is true of any media. CDs and DVDs aren't cheaper because the price is justified or because EMI and Warner are nice companies who look out for us the consumer, again they are set at where the company can make the most profit.

And this is good. Some people believe that companies rip us all off so the CEOs of these companies then take all the profits and spend it on a massive yacht. When in reality, this profit goes to shareholders, who in a lot of cases are people like you and me. Millions of people's pensions rely on companies like this to make profits.

These companies also employ millions of people. When they do well, they employ more people and pay them more money, which in turn gets spent on other goods and services. And the country grows and everyone gets better off.

Sorry for the mini economics rant, but it does wind me up when people think firms have some duty to make prices cheaper and that this actually makes things better, when it doesn't.

[Zed]

Movies can recoup the cost just from cinema tickets alone. Millions more from cable/satelite rights, and millions more from rights to TV stations around the world everytime it's shown.

And the economies of scale for movies completely overshadows that of games.

And given the gaming industry is meant to be worth a similar order of magnitude to films, why dont they push for more TV time? When was the last World Cyber Games footage you saw on mainstream TV, or how about that innudation of review shows or slots on the evening news?

People are always throwing about gaming earning about as much as movies, so why so much less apparent clout?

Where do people keep getting these rediculous playtimes from? It's been shown every year that the average gamer buys 6-7 games per year and plays games for 12 hours/week.

Sorry? I said 6+ hours, which is like 6 as a minimum up to 50 billion (or infinity even) for sad-arse gamers that play one game over and over. Very picky point to pick over there... Some games are really short, or people might play a few hours and no more; for example i wonder how many people that bought Alien Homind say put in more than 6 hours? I bet most went "**** me this is hard" and never touched it again. Please show me the numbers for this 12 hours to educate me.

[Paulos G]

...mini economics rant...

(just read the post)

What Brats said.

P

[Leon Retro]

As I said.. it's a given business thrives on making as much money as possible!

We can't blame the software business for being greedy, because that's what drives any business.

Away from that, it is the case that videogames are over priced.

People make excuses for the videogame industry, but all they are doing is making comparisons betweeen one greedy industry and another.

This greed does have more negative connotations beyond price, and these are the stifling of creativity, and the death of diversity.

Big publishers are becoming fewer and fewer because we are caught-up in a situation where only the biggest most cash-laiden publishers can create big name overly hyped products.

The scenario where we have such few publishers, means that there isn't room for strong competition, and that we have a situation where pricing isn't challenged, and creativity is a narrow street!


The simple matter is the fact that games are way too expensive. You can cite the cost of game production, the popularity of games, and the growth of the industry, but that cannot take away the fact that many people, probably a large percentage of gamers think games cost too much, but ultimately are still worth buying.

There have been many people arguing this debate for many years now, and you had a big campaign a few years back. Sadly.. the strength of publishers and the strong desire for videogames combines to create a situation where the elite group of remaining videogame companies have so much power and arrogance, they could probably sell games for ?60!

[Brats]

Is there any evidence in what you've just said?

Got a link to where there are Are there less big publishers now? Firms like Acclaim may have gone to the wall, but you've also got firms like Ubisoft and Majesco who have come from nowhere in recent years. In Edge there was an excellent article with Giant who worked with Travellers Tales on Lego Star Wars and look like going from strength to strength.

What people think is too expensive is irrelevant to some extent. People will always think things are too expensive. How much to people moan about the price of Live Arcade games that cost a few quid?

Plus is there any evidence that high prices stifle creativity? If you look at the budget market for games, then I'd say the evidence is against it. Surely the logic goes that creative titles are likely to be more leftfield and only appeal to a smaller audience. Therefore a lower price is likely to make them less enticing.

The counter argument is that with lower prices people will take more chances, but with other media that is not the case. Look at the music charts or the film charts and you'll see the public still play it very safe, despite the much lower price. And I don't see much creativity from the big Hollywood studios or the music publishers either.

[Brats]

Plus.......if prices are lower and publishers make less money, then surely they are even less likely to take a chance on creative titles.

If low prices are supposed to be an encouragement for creativity, then you'd think that creativity would spark once console game prices become so cheap, but that hasn't happened. I don't see more creativity in the cheaper PC market either and the odd original title like The Movies or Evil Genius fails to sell.

[EvilBoris]

I wish more publishers would take a more considerate stance and use their well earned mainstream game cash to produce some more creatively unique titles.

I salute capcom for doing this, More companies should follow suit.

[Sony Fanboy]

But would consumers be 'considerate' enough to purchase everything they deem to be creative?

End consumers have the luxury of ignoring anything that doesn't suite them or, more importantly, is not marketed to them.

It's always easier to ask someone else to risk their money. And when the likelyhood remains that one person's creative title is another's rubbish title, finances will have little influence.

[Leon Retro]

Is there any evidence in what you've just said?

There is probably loads of evidence. All my views aren't based on just my personal opinions, but also many things I have read over the years.

You could probably find evidence to support your view too.


As gamers we should stand together though. I see little point in taking the side of the software industry and choosing to believe all they say.

I personally respect the creatives, not the finance men. People often make the mistake of lumping the creative and business side of videogaming together, but they really are different worlds.

When we say we like Nintendo, Sega etc... who do with have adulation for? It's the creatives who produce the wonderous games we all love, not the businessmen, marketing and hyping product with the aim of making tons and tons of gold!

I only buy the games I like because I enjoy seeing the creations talented people have made. It's just a shame the money men take advantage of my love for these creations, and charge such extortionate amounts.

As a gamer though, I'm used to it, but it doesn't mean I like it!


This issue is pretty deep though, and there are many elements involved, but after weighing up all the factors, I feel videogaming is far more expensive than it has any right to be!