?30 is now a 'Budget Price'!

[Sony Fanboy]

Some down-right inaccurate comments from Nintendo, possibly explaining the higher cost of GC games:

Speaking during a corporate management briefing, Iwata said: "We believe that each software should have its own price point depending on its volume, theme, contents or energies and time spent for the development, namely, the development costs.

"Once the suggested retail price is announced, we should stick to it," he added.

At the moment, publishers aren't keen to release games with lower price points, since they're worried retailers and gamers will assume they're of a lower quality.

But Iwata believes this does more harm than good: "If the suggested retail price of any and all software is marked down in 6 months or 9 months, the customers will learn the cycle and wait for the discounting," he explained, "Which will simply aggravate the decreasing sales of new software."

Full: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=17848

[MikeRox]

I think he's spot on with the thing of games getting marked down. I'm sick of paying ?40 for a game only for it to be reduced a couple of weeks later, it's not like a ?2-5 discount either, often it's up to 75% discount.

Outrun 2006 Coast 2 Coast is a prime example, the game isn't even 3 months old and u can already get it 66% below the RRP.

It does explain why 1st party GC games hold their value so well, and it honestly makes me more inclined to spend ?40 on a Nintendo game where I wudn't a 3rd party title simply coz I know in most cases it'll drop fairly pronto.

[Leon Retro]

I think he's spot on with the thing of games getting marked down. I'm sick of paying ?40 for a game only for it to be reduced a couple of weeks later, it's not like a ?2-5 discount either, often it's up to 75% discount.

Outrun 2006 Coast 2 Coast is a prime example, the game isn't even 3 months old and u can already get it 66% below the RRP.

It does explain why 1st party GC games hold their value so well, and it honestly makes me more inclined to spend ?40 on a Nintendo game where I wudn't a 3rd party title simply coz I know in most cases it'll drop fairly pronto.

Yeah... I get angry too!

Some people will say " You pay the price for having it early! " .... but 2-3months isn't that long, and the 50-75% reductions on some games is always going to annoy people who paid top-whack.

All these reductions give me the impression that game pricing is very very dodgy. Prices seem to be based on marketing and brand image more than anything. Big name franchises command high-prices because the publisher/retailer can get away with charging them. ( Look at Dragon Quest 8 in Japan as a prime example of this! )

It's the Metal Gear/Final Fantasy/GTA/FIFA's of this world and their popularity that has created a market where games sell for ?40-50.

I really do think the cynical pricing and greed that comes from certain publishers has created a market where only a small percentage of devs and publishers are succesful. This creates a situation where creativitiy is stiffled, and many original and unique games don't get a look in, or proper funding because the money-men are focused on a small minority of big name titles that command high prices and sell well for many months.

It's up to the console manufacturers to set a standard. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo should sell their own titles at say ?24.99 and give publishers incentives to follow suit. I truly believe that lower priced games would encourage a more diverse and dynamic market where people would buy more titles and embrace a broader range experiences.

[EJG1980]

Hopefully things like Microsoft's Live Arcade on the 360 will help the smaller publishers have the chance to put out cheaper and more innovative games. I was listening to Major Nelson's podcast the other day, and there's a game coming to Live Arcade that'll be using the Unreal 3 engine, and it's all squeezed in under 50MB, so not all the games on there have to be retro re-releases. Hopefully we'll start seeing lots more original games from small publishers being released on there.

[Leon Retro]

Hopefully things like Microsoft's Live Arcade on the 360 will help the smaller publishers have the chance to put out cheaper and more innovative games. I was listening to Major Nelson's podcast the other day, and there's a game coming to Live Arcade that'll be using the Unreal 3 engine, and it's all squeezed in under 50MB, so not all the games on there have to be retro re-releases. Hopefully we'll start seeing lots more original games from small publishers being released on there.

Yeah... Geometry Wars is concrete prove people have a strong desire for innovative fun games. It's still early days for Live Arcade.... I hope it grows to become something really special!

Arcade enables small devs to create quite unique inexpensive titles, and is one of the best things about the 360.

[Sony Fanboy]

Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo should sell their own titles at say ?24.99 and give publishers incentives to follow suit.

Doesn't work quite like that, retailers are free to set whatever price they want and often it is not influenced by the wholesale price. A telltale indication to this is seen in break-even price drops (e.g. Sands of Time, originally ?30 quickly became ?17.99 after it flopped at launch, but Soul Calubur, also originally ?30 became ?12.99).

Currently, retailers like the ?30 price point as it maximises profits while maintaining sales.

[Leon Retro]

Doesn't work quite like that, retailers are free to set whatever price they want and often it is not influenced by the wholesale price. A telltale indication to this is seen in break-even price drops (e.g. Sands of Time, originally ?30 quickly became ?17.99 after it flopped at launch, but Soul Calubur, also originally ?30 became ?12.99).

Currently, retailers like the ?30 price point as it maximises profits while maintaining sales.

If the console manufacturers wanted games to be cheaper, say ?24.99, I think they would find a way.

They could reduce the license fee etc... Why is it E.A etc... were saying a while back next-gen games would be more expensive ( ?50 ) ... probably because they do have control over pricing.

I don't think retailers have much power really. From what I read and know, it seems the console makers and publishers determine the value of games.

Big name publishers are happy to make their money from a small percentage of hit big name franchises. They don't care about struggling devs, or innovation that much.

It's down to Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft to decide how they wan't the gaming market to be run. Sadly... these companies obviously see little reason to make gaming cheaper and more open!

[Sony Fanboy]

...

The licence fee is only around ?1-3 per game to the console manufacturer. If the game contains a licensed product, it's usually about 10% of the income of the publisher/dev - this is again out of control of the console manufacturer.

Big name publishers are happy to make their money from a small percentage of hit big name franchises. They don't care about struggling devs, or innovation that much.

Another disgruntled chart viewer...

In all three regions there's by far a single dominant publisher/dev: EA and Nintendo. It's wrong to say they rely on a small percentage of franchises since when was the last time you saw an EA game not make the top of the charts in EU/US and Nintendo in JAP? These two companies are just out and out the most successful.

How many so-called big hits are released each year by other publishers and what percentage of the total sales do they account for? You can't imply that non-big hits are friendly to struggling devs or innovation - not every game is predicted by the devs themselves to be multimillion sellers. If you read projected financial reports, e.g. capcom, most of their 30 titles in 2004 were predicted to sell only 20-50k copies, which is what they got.

The fact remains that some people are just jealous that their fav games are not making the charts.

It's down to Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft to decide how they wan't the gaming market to be run. Sadly... these companies obviously see little reason to make gaming cheaper and more open!

EU fair trade rules comes in place to make sure console manufacturers don't have too much influence. The sale between the publisher and the retailer is independent and cannot be price-fixed.

Theres a rule in trading - the party more desperate to sell has less influence on the deal. Take a big hit title like FF or FIFA; the retailer knows SE and EA have spent over 5million to make that game. If those games doesn't get sold, it's a definite multimillion loss to the dev and publisher. But for the retailer it's just a small projected loss - which they can try and recoup from 99% of other titles. The same applies to budget titles, and it means the retailer can negotiate a wholesale price that is more suited to them.

[Leon Retro]

You make some good points Sony Fanboy. I know the publishers and retailers aren't totally without justification for the high-pricing, and if they were really as evil as I sometimes think they are, they would charge ?60 a game. ( Touch wood they don't sometime! )

When you take into account all the factors within the games industry, I still think games are too expensive, and that things may be better with more reasonably priced titles.

I would love to know what a real industry development veteran thinks of current pricing. I'm really curious to know what devs really think away from the fear of their bosses knowing.

[hell10n]

Having been the 1st in the queue when the PS1, N64 & PS2 were released I now refuse to pay the full price for a console unless it is a reasonable price.

?280 for a 360 & ?450 minimum for a PS3 is just way too much in my opinion. I can think of better things than gaming to spend that kind of money on. With me it used to be a case of how powerful is the console & its graphics, but its more about the games these days. Besides, from what I've seen of the 360 & PS3 its not a significant jump forward in terms of eye candy. Yes there may be more bells & whistles but I wont use them. Hell, I downgraded my mobile recently because I just dont use the camera, mp3, internet & games.
Why pay for something that you're not going to use?

Besides, I'm quite happy with my XBOX, PS2 & GC at the mo & theres still plenty of great titles for these consoles some at a pretty cheap price too, especially XBOX titles which are dropping in price pretty fast because of the 360.

[MattyD]

Over at gameplay.com:

Prey (PC) - ?25
Prey (Xbox360) - ?40

Developer says the 360 version is like the PC on 'medium' graphic settings.

My work here is done.

[Brats]

That's because as well as the licence fee, the demand for the 360 version will be higher.

Higher demand = higher price.

My work here is done.

[John Beaulieu]

PC capable of running Prey @ high resolutions = ?900.00+++

Xbox 360 Premium Pack with Xbox Live Subscription (12 months) = ?330

My work here is done

[eastyy]

my done here is work

I personally still think of budget price as ?2:99

[Wools]

I personally still think of budget price as ?2:99

Excatly.

?30 is not a budget price, it's cheaper than the RRP. Hence a marketing persons view of a Budget price. Bollocks, quite frankly!