Are games worth $60?
polycounter lvl 15
There's this thread on [H]ardOCP about retail games taking a price dip because of the state of the economy. And out of that people started saying the cost of games don't equal the value of gameplay they provide today vs games of yesteryear.
I know all games are not created equal, and with that said I know all games may not be "worth" the retail price to a consumer.
So are games worth $60? Have we shot ourselves in the foot with outrageous productions where the sell through point is too high for profit? Or is this just people bitching for nothing? Do you think there will be a rise in independent developers ("garage devs") from all of this?
I know all games are not created equal, and with that said I know all games may not be "worth" the retail price to a consumer.
So are games worth $60? Have we shot ourselves in the foot with outrageous productions where the sell through point is too high for profit? Or is this just people bitching for nothing? Do you think there will be a rise in independent developers ("garage devs") from all of this?
Replies
I judge them on an individual basis - I don't buy the games I don't think are worth it. Or I wait until they've been marked down. But for games I'm excited about or played the demo and enjoyed? No hesitation throwing down $60.
I've seen people bitch about $10 games being too expensive. Hell, I've seen people bitch about free games.
I prefer the $20 - $40 price range. Anything more, and I'm most likely paying the developer more than what I'm getting in return due to their poor design decisions and hefty production costs. More content does not always equal more fun. Keeping it simple in scope, I think, can go a long way.
Some games are great, and worth the price, when they hit the bargain bin. Many old PS2 games are a steal atm.
Grand Theft Auto games are worth their weight in gold, so I had no problem paying up for them, even multiple times for different platforms. I've spent hundreds of hours on them over the years.
Other games, not so much. There are some games which are really just a few hours of gameplay, and have no reason to ever pick them up again. There is no way in hell I am paying any serious money for those. I pick them up in the bargain bin.
There is no reason for games to cost that much. I didn't pay 60$ to go see The Dark Knight, or even buy the DVD (or both added together), and it cost much more to make.
Games should be priced in line with movies. There are so many games I passed up simply because I refused to pay so much for them, and it shouldn't have been that way.
It kind of does not make sense to me how our budgets for development can balloon to multiple millions if not more and the price for the game stays the same as they were 20 years ago.
I kinda echo what most feel is that if I feel it is worth it then I will drop the 60. It is something I am willing to spend to be entertained. Granted if the game sucks then it gets gameranged or borrowed...
I've always been extremely opposed to the high price point of games because it encourages a reliance on blockbuster titles to run the entire industry. No one can afford to buy niche titles because when you are faced with Big Beloved Franchise vs Some Indie Title at $60 each of course you are going to take the safer option.
2x40 > 60 and it's spread across more people, making for a healthier industry in general.
Classic Example:
I walked into a store and saw Okami and FFXII side-by-side at $60 each. I walked out with FFXII and Okami ended up selling poorly and Clover dissolved. Had those games been $40 I wouldn't have hesitated to buy both.
Games surely are a useless waste of time, but if you are bored... not all is work, work, and more work. Films are also a waste of time and money? People go to cinema and they waste more hehehe
I bought 2 copies of left 4 dead at play.com, and what the hell! the game deserves it x2! I enjoy playing with my bro and friends as a child.
I haven't got problems paying for something i really like, and i think games can be considered as a luxury. I paid 70+ euro for SNES games on its days (legend of Zelda was one)... and i never heard "they are so expensive". That's something new as an excuse because ppl download almost all, and it's very cool to say: "they are so expensive".
Why worry about prices of games when people can download them as free? ¬¬ They can be at 20 bucks that they won't be sold (tested 100%), all the boxes will eat dust for sure. The people who "can't afford" to pay a game will play it without paying because they have the access to internet. Here where i live, is a custom not to pay for "games", and if you pay for a "stupid game" you are like an idiot. "Money is for other things..." <---this is what too many friends say me.
So support the developers paying 60 euros for their game... i'd say yes if i love their product. I'm not a gamer but i like to play good games.
Guitar Hero: World Tour is 220$ here.
Some N64 games were 49.99 or 59.99, I remember playing 59.99 for Starfox on SNES because it featured the FX Chip.
You buy whats important to you and your budget. Games aren't as important as gas in your car to go to work, its a luxury so you don't have to get it.
I think games should be priced according to the cost of development.
Surely it would be better than for Okami to have been sold for less? Wouldn't that make people consider longer which to buy? (If they weren't FF freaks like me, of course. I am playing FFVII on my PSP right now and loving it all over again
considering the man power it takes to make them, and that even at 60 bucks most companies are still not making a profit...
i paid 50 bucks for battletoads in 1991... i also paid like 100 bucks for phantasy star III... and that was 18 years ago... most people forget that back in the day people only had like 2 or 3 games.. considering inflation, i am not surprised to see games costing more.. i also use to play games a lot longer back then, so i could justify it more, now i spend that money on books..
Also, I picked up the Transformers game in the bargain bin for $10. I don't think it was even worth the $10... let alone the $60 it initially retailed at.
I also think that once a game has made over its production costs, the price should be reduced. For instance, Guitar Hero 1 is still selling for $50-$60 at Circuit City... for the PS2. Gears of War 1 was still selling for $60 when GoW2 came out.
As for games worth it... I think GoW and LittleBigPlanet are two games I own that were worth $60.
But if they had sold it for cheaper, they would have sold more copies and then have made more money. That's why the big christmas games (at least here in Ireland) have all been going for 30 euro each...the competition has cause it but then people will buy two titles instead of one.
Games have decided to price themselves way above what they should cost, and that excludes a lot of people who would have bought them at a lower price point. I think the only reasons games cost so much is because the main fanbase has been willing to pay it.
The games industry is a top ten business. It's not hard to see why. I'm not the only one in here who posted that they would buy some games at a price point, but not others, or have passed up games all together.
I can list a ton of games I was interested in, and wanted to own, but they just cost to much to justify it. Yet, I've gone through at least a dozen CDs and DVDs in the last month and a half.
How many people made great RPGs, but went out of business because people bought Final Fantasy 12 knowing they would love it, but wouldn't risk the same money on that other RPG, or just couldn't afford it?
I wanted to buy Bloodrayne 2, just to have it, but it was always 60-70$. The local store here has had the same half dozen copies on the shelf for like 3-4 years, and it never lowered in price. Even though I wanted the game, and loved the character, I just ended up buying 2 greatest hits and had money to spare.
Look at Midway. They are going down the shitter. They make sloppy fighting games that no serious fighting game fan will touch. They just put out a wrestling game that scared off the entire target audience that was eagerly awaiting it for 2 years! They put a football game out where you stick needles in people's asses, and no football fan is really interested in. And these games all cost so much that no will ever buy them just to have them, for variety in their favorite genre, or to have some fun over a weekend.
Yet, movies and music are priced so that I can and do pick up titles out of sheer curiosity. Not many people can afford to do that with games. You have to go with the safe bets.
__TANGENT
even after narrowing down a lot I still wind up with too many games, and even though I buy only to keep now (I don't want to waste money on something I will trade in later,), and even then I'm regretting some purchases (soul calibur 4, not that it was a bad game but that I barely played it, got sidetracked)
I've found that 'short' games like Left 4 Dead have gotten me MUCH more playtime than games like GTA4 (for me, it's tough to stick with one game so I don't get nearly as much playtime with stuff like Fallout 3 or GTA as I could, unfortunately), and more enjoyable experiences overall, I thought Mirrors Edge was great and that length - while I don't necessarily deem it worth full price (I paid 20$ - woth it for me), felt like a better experience than most full priced, longer games. For what it's worth, I think the $10 TF2 deal is the best gaming value EVER. I mean, shit, come on. That's amazing.
___BACK TO MAIN TOPIC
to say if games are worth 60$? well, I guess at the very least they should be priced where they can make a profit if they sell a certain amount. that amount happens to be very high afaik since most games cost millions to make, at least.
to the person who said if the price was lowered, they'd make more of a profit?
well, yeah, you might think that initially, but if they're selling it at 2/3rds of the price , they need to sell that much more as well, and nothing says that it will sell that much more due to the price drop. maybe it balances out, I don't know.
I think the BEST examples of price to value are games like Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, Katamari Damacy, etc. where they released at $40 and $20 price points, respectively.
unfortunately for as amazing as those games were they still bombed, even with the lower price point. ugh.
I don't know exactly where i'm going with this since I go off in different directions, but I guess my point is that games in general should be priced in terms with how much value they offer. There are so many 60$ games out there that are just ass, and should be priced by their quality. Since all of this is somewhat subjective and it all depends on the person.. uh. no, I don't know the answer.
verdict:
some are totally worth it - most arent. but thankfully a lot of recent games (including really sweet ones) are going down in price SIGNIFICANTLY within the first year. (Bioshock $5, GTA4 $15, TF2 $10, Banjo $26, etc)
No, you are blatantly wrong here on both assumptions.
"But if they had sold it for cheaper, they would have sold more copies and then have made more money."
You used 'Would', when you meant 'could'. They COULD have sold more copies.
"have all been going for 30 euro each...the competition has cause it but then people will buy two titles instead of one."
No. If something is cheaper that doesn't mean that people will buy twice as much. Some people might, but I'd contend that most people would be happy with their bargain and spend the money they saved on something else.
A classic case of what is wrong with the internet. Everyone thinks they are absolutely right. Are you an economist? Do you understand the mindboggling intricacies of sales psychology?
Had Okami been 15-20 euro's cheaper than FFXII, people with no bias who just wanted to buy a game probably would have gone with Okami. After all, it looks pretty and unique, and doesn't suffer from what many ( read: 13 year old Halo) gamers see as faults in the FF series, such as its gameplay.
I am the tighest scrooge I know always looking for the cheapest. I have bought Fallout 3, Tomb Raider Underworld, and am going to buy Soul calibur IV today, all because they are 30 euro. If they were 60 each, I would have bought none of them (haven't bough SCIV till now, after all). If your opinion was fact, January sales wouldn't exist.
You are entitled to your opinion though
let's say the average joe, and his friend jim, both have the same job, same income, but different goings. joe ends up with $200 for himself, and jim ends up with $100. a $60 game is going to be much easier to justify as an expense for joe, than it will for jim, who has to weigh the game up against other things that he may also want/need.
that said, i've come to the conclusion lately that i can't justify that expense anymore. it's an easily affordable expense for me. but seeing as i can finish most games in the space of 10 hours, and all that's toted on the back of the box is "fantastic visuals", i really could care less anymore.
shooter after shooter after shooter after shooter just gets boring as hell, especially when they are set in the same environments. a slight quirk in gameplay that makes it "unique" will only make it unique for the first hour, before you're over it and it just feels like every other shooter on the planet. coupled with douchebags who take games too seriously, and want to feel like a commando in their living room playing CoD4/5.
give me something original, with a truly unique playstyle, that makes me think, and won't be over before i've even "got into it", and THEN i'll start buying games again.
it's our fault as consumers though, they pump out the same shit, at high prices, we keep buying the same shit, at high prices, so in their eyes, why fix what ain't broke?
/rant.
If I ever do find myself needing to play all of the latest titles, I'm definitely going to take advantage of a service like GameFly.
I cant speak for the industry or the consumers but personally I don't feel very ripped off when it comes to games. I think I usually get my $60 worth or my $10-20 when it comes to arcade games.
I also refuse to buy or trade in used games anymore. I mean if I am going to be shelling out more than $30 to buy a game I'd rather that go to the developer than Gamestop.
i normally don't buy 2nd hand nor do i ever rent either.
I'll pay $60 for Metal Gear, Final Fantasy and Resident Evil. Those are the three series I have enjoyed most over the years and have sparked my imagination in so many ways. They have high production values and wow me. (Wow factor: that's the key point.)
These games give me an experience.
I'd pay $50 for Mario, Zelda and other platform games. They can be really fun or they can take a franchise I have enjoyed for years and add some gimmick that leaves me feeling very iffy about the game (Mario Sunshine). I'll throw tournament fighting games in this category as well.
These games give me fun.
I might pay $40 for the countless FPS(occasional 3rd person) games out there. I counted them one day at a local department store. Out of the roughly 40 games that were displayed in the case, 25-27 were FPS/3rdPS. There has not really been many standouts in this category for me. More than likely if I have an interest in these games I will rent them, get my fill and be done. A good co-op play-through can extend their life and value, but usually not by much.
These games give me a distraction.
For $35 and under, I'll pay this, maybe, for any movie/TV/cartoon/whatever tie-in. Though most of them also fall into the rental category.
Special case: Rock Band 2... I *really* enjoy this game and its predecessor and I *really* want to put the money into it, but lack of funding prevents this. I have played hours and hours when my friends have brought theirs over and it is a great group game. Very much worth the investment. I have however purchased roughly $35 worth of DLC for the two games I do not get to play but maybe once a month to month and a half. That's saying something.
I dislike buying used games. I am a collector and tend to have an attachment to the first of anything I buy. I really do not like having to replace items.
For the things I feel are worth it, things that provoke my imagination, set it spiraling, for things that I'll refer to and reminisce about and possibly pull out to play again years down the road, I will throw inordinate amounts of money at. You may not get first week sales, but you have my sword!
/me remembers Final Fantasy II when it was $74 for the SNES...
Who knows maybe you are an economist with a firm grasp on the psychology of sales? If so I don't think you outlined your point well enough to convince people fully, I know I'm not on board.
Why buy two of something when you only need one?
Rick is right in saying they COULD have sold more. There is a POTENTIAL to sell more, not a given like you suggested by using the word WOULD. Simply lowering the price of games will not guarantee a profit. It might help the over all number of units sold, but that doesn't mean each game will turn more of a profit. Even if they reinvest their savings into another game they probably won't buy a game from the same developer or even the same publisher.
If they drop their price by half, they have to sell double to break even. Which might require more marketing to expand the market and don't forget about mfg costs, shipping. A lot of stores will stop caring games from publishers with poor sell through. Flooding the market could hurt very important business contacts. What if the market is at max saturation for a particular genre? Where are those extra sales going to come from?
I (like many other people) normally buy one game at a time, play it for a while and then pick up another. If that game was $30 I highly doubt I would buy two games at once just so my total purchase would equal the cost of an expensive game.
The important thing to remember is to not over/under estimate the value of your game, and price it appropriately. Slashing all prices across the board and just expecting people to buy more is not a solid plan for success.
What they should do is cut back their own costs by ceasing their endless fight against piracy. Then they could sell the game cheaper, and possibly lower the number of pirating attempts (because they become more affordable).
I've said this many times before. They'll never end piracy, and I think they spend more money preventing it than they actually lose due to piracy. And when I say that, I mean loses to those who would actually make a purchase, but choose to pirate instead. I don't count people who pirate just to pirate.
Need? And two games do not equal two banana's mate, if you put videogames in consoles that run them you might find that the two games are actually quite different
Splitting hairs over tenses is annoying. The sun MIGHT NOT rise tommorow, but it will.
I have not seen one ad for the games I have bought this christmas, never mind seeing ads with their lowered sales prices. I just came across them when I walked into a GAME store. Sales prices are so tricky; they might change, availability may run out...and anyway, people will be christmas shopping, and then spending their haul post-christmas; so who needs to spend huge amounts on ads for the particular product at the particular sale price point I am talking about, when it is done for free? Answer> They haven't.
Yup, I can see GAME and others stopping the retail sale of Ubisoft, Eidos, Bethesda and Capcom games any days now. All those publishers have games on the shelves at 30 euros when they should be 60. And publishers might not have decided those prices, the retail chains might have.
Ever notice that with some games? Personally I think it is just companies being right gits. Like Nintendo with Twilight Princess. And CoD 4. Still the same price they released on! :thumbdown:
Some of you are making a knot form in my stomach, seriously.
You still misunderstand.
Prices COULD be cut in half, it doesn't mean profits will increase.
Which is all that Rick was pointing out. It seems you took being corrected personally?
It is easier to lower the price on a game if sales are slumping then it is to jack the price up on a game that starts to sell well.
As for the other thread, I pointed out that it was a sign of naivety to link maturity level to age. No words where put in your mouth.
You assume that the 50% of new units sold will go to people who already buy games? (Which we already talked about, they'll probably take the cash and go.)
Or
Are you assuming that the 50% more customers will just materialize in the store, see the great deals and buy two?
If all you're ever going to sell is 50,000 units cutting the price in half seems about as smart as sawing your legs off so you can run faster. How do you sell more units by preaching to the choir? You don't need to raise awareness among people who already buy.
There are a lot of tiny publishers they wouldn't think twice about dropping. Even for the big pubs do you really think stores are going to overstock their shelves because publishers have decided to flood the market with units? Do you really think they are going to gobble up every little title they toss at them? Or are they going to restrict numbers and titles?
Sell through.
A chain agrees to try and sell X number of units, if those units don't sell they go back to the publisher. Failure to sell through effects future negotiations. Kind of counter productive to the "put more units on store shelves" strategy don't you think?
Hope your tummy feels better in the morning.
I think I can safely say that there is no game on the market that I'd consider being worth more than £35, tops. With 90% of them not worth a penny over £30.
It's why I wait for the PC versions of games most of the time, as they're usually £25-30 while the xbox ones hover at £35-40 and the PS3 ones can be even more expensive again.
If game companies could eliminate piracy they would probably charge more for each game. It is about what people are willing to pay-- not what something is worth. If you didn't have the option to steal a game, then you are in a much weaker buying position.
So why $60? If games cost half as much, you can safely assume that people won't buy twice as much. The fact is that you only have so many free hours to spend playing games. If one game fills those hours up, they have no reason to buy another.
Anybody who wants to pay less for games can. They have "greatest hits" version that cost less. Or you can wait a few years and buy Gears 2 as a download for your XBox 720. Or buy stuff used. So it is kind of a moot issue.