Justifiying the 60$ price tag.

[Simca]

You can find it ridiculous all you want but I am a former law college student and I still remember reading about cases of market conspiracy on the price of cigarettes.

The natural way of competition is when companies try to win out customers by lowering prices and offering better deals. You can't talk about "standards" in the abstract, everything in the business world is dictated by reasons of efficacy or profit. If the whole market has a unified price on a very non-homogenous product, that is no mere coincidence.

The (silent) agreement itself may have taken place between a couple of the big US producers, and the smaller companies just followed suit, adopting it as a sound business tactic to increase profits and not upset the plans of their bigger competitors.

I honestly think you're making it out to be more complex than it is. Game companies just try to maximize profit. 2-3 years ago, some companies started charging $60 instead of $50 for big-name new games. I remember when a couple of big name titles were costing $60 and the forums were all upset about it. Eventually, other companies realized that the $60 price tag didn't hurt their sales enough to justify staying at $50 so they followed suit. Nowadays, even the shit games can be placed at $60 because people are USED to the price tag.

Basically, companies just saw the strategy of their competitors working and copied it. It's really not that complicated.


I find the whole thing to be silly - people complaining just to complain. If you don't want to pay $60, then ride the 6-month wave and play games that came out 6-months ago right now and then play Skyrim in 6 months from now. You'll always have something to do if you stay a fixed rate behind the curve.

[Necronium]

I need to get better accounted with Steam

I've been waiting, I'm almost done all my games. Now the real fun begins.

Steam can be your best friend, yet your worst enemy.

But yes, you should totally get it, unless you are one of those people who MUST have the original package and all that crap.
The special sales are absolutely mad.

[blackangel209]

Too bad Minecraft ruins most of the arguement here...I compare it to modern day movies that spend $200 million on making some crazy special effects movies with "AAA" actors and thousands of people working on the set only for it to have no dialogue, no substance, NO HEART. Then a guy with a camera and an idea to make a scary movie makes a "Paranormal" film for $300k and its wildly succecssful comparatively.

There is no inherent substance or heart in Minecraft. It, just like Paranormal Activity, is a product of genius marketing. Paranormal Activity created artificial demand for a wide release that was going to happen anyway and then people felt obligated to see it. Minecraft was offered at a discount if you "pre-ordered"(no joke, calling it beta/alpha when really he just had an unfinished game and a need for cash was brilliant) a game that's 99% crowd-sourcing. Minecraft is great for an indie game, but comparing it to something like Mass Effect or Skyrim is naive at best.

[Deleted]

I need to get better accounted with Steam

I've been waiting, I'm almost done all my games. Now the real fun begins.

you should, its clearly awesome. I got bioshock 2 (even though buggy as friggin hell) for like £5 before it was a year old. Same with arkham asylum and loads more..

---------- Post added 2011-11-01 at 08:18 PM ----------

The special sales are absolutely mad.

lol i know what you mean, bought like 3 games during the halloween sale, almost bought depths of peril yesterday, and im thinking about buying bastion. Damn you steam!

[zealous]

I honestly think you're making it out to be more complex than it is. Game companies just try to maximize profit. 2-3 years ago, some companies started charging $60 instead of $50 for big-name new games. I remember when a couple of big name titles were costing $60 and the forums were all upset about it. Eventually, other companies realized that the $60 price tag didn't hurt their sales enough to justify staying at $50 so they followed suit. Nowadays, even the shit games can be placed at $60 because people are USED to the price tag.

Basically, companies just saw the strategy of their competitors working and copied it. It's really not that complicated.

All that you said doesn't stray too far from what I said in the last line of my post.

[Latitude]

Minecraft isn't considered a AAA quality game. It's an indie game.

This was related to the OPs desire to have a game with replay value that will engage you for more than 8 hours for $60 which Minecraft does. Quality doesn't mean its shiny. I don't need a deck of cards that shoots lasers and explodes to play a game of poker (while it sounds cool it would get old very quickly).

Nobody said indie games aren't/can't be good. There are some that are spectacular (Minecraft, Limbo, Bastion ect.), but there are a ton more that are horrible. I've played a number of indie games that are just gawdawful piles of trash because the lack of budget ect. cause there to be massive flaws within the game.

My argument here is that it doesnt take large budgets to make a great game. Do you think if all games had obscene budgets they would be that much better? These games are not unique little snowflakes in terms of development for the most part it just seems that some people have vision for what a great game looks like and know how to accomplish that and some people don't.

How many thousands upon thousands of Blair Witch Projects of Paranormal whatever films are made every year. Of those thousands upon thousands, maybe 1-2 make it big every year. Of all the movies with massive budgets, a good chunk of them make a decent profit.

This relates to the previous point about vision. Instead of churning out thousands and thousands of random movies why don't people analyze why the 1-2 that made it worked in the first place? If you made 100 games in a year and only 1 was good and earned money why make the other 99 in the first place?

Old game making model seemed to be like firing a single guided missile hitting a target with pinpoint accuracy

New game making model seems to be like carpet bombing - dropping everything all over the place in the hopes that you hit the target (if at all)

You haven't ruined any argument, you've just pointed out that there are outliers. Congratulations.

The Outliers are there for a reason. They don't happen magically. If companies focused on why a game worked the OP wouldn't care about spending $60 on a new game he was unsure about because even if he didn't enjoy the overall game it would have still been worth the money.

[endersblade]

There's also the 'package' cost. I used to tell myself the game cost was justified somewhat, because they had to pay for the packaging, CD, blah blah. I understand though that it probably only cost them around a buck to make the entire package, including the CD for the game, but at least there was substance to what you were buying.

Now, with things like Steam, et al, it makes no sense for them to continue pricing games the way they do. Especially when the quality just isn't there like it used to be.

[LGalucard]

Steam has been the saving grace of gaming for me. I got A LOT of games in my steam account many of which i would have never ever bought at full price but i gladly paid for them with a massive discount. Digital distribution is not gonna lower the overall price of games, just look at most of the big titles they all still have their 60 bucks price tag even though its no longer in a box or a shelf. Mind you is still cheaper for me to buy on game for pc since i dont pay taxes on it or have to wait time and gass to get to the store.

I know classic era games had little replay value and they lasted mainly based on their retarded difficulty. But im not comparing this gen to that im comparing it to the last. I feel from nintendo up to ps2 era we saw and evolution in content and offer. SNES games concepts transferred well to ps1 and ps2 without lacking content or quality depending on their particular genera. However i feel this generation of games instead of being the next big step towards something bigger and better we have gotten with very few exceptions a reduced offer and quality at a higher price tag.

[Noden]

This is just a really simple break down.

Games cost a lot ot make and a lot to ship. Most of the companies that sale the games dont see much of an earning from the sales.

[Krid]

Shit, I bought Pokemon: Gold for GBA for 60 bucks back in the day.

[Alliryian]

I agree that many games are to short for me but with all the online multiplayer these days most games just arent going to make the single player that long because most of the people who buy it will jump straight to multilplayer without worrying about the offline experience (this applies to shooters mostly), i suggest only going for the single player games that have no online experience at all, like SKYRIM (going to be the best game of all time, I called it!)

[Ave07]

Has anyone been noticing that games cost Australians $100 Australian dollars? Been going on at steam a lot lately.

[Deleted]

i got BF3 for pc for £20, now i go to buy MW3 and its like £40 ah well.

[conscript]

Has anyone been noticing that games cost Australians $100 Australian dollars? Been going on at steam a lot lately.

Ya games for Aussies seem to be massively inflated in price. Pretty shoddy deal. I blame your government.

Personally, I am fine with the $60 tag as long as the game offers at least 15 hours of game play, including useful multiplayer (like BF3). At that game play price ratio, it is similar to going to a movie. The only time I have a problem with that sort of tag is a game that simply does not have that value, like say Duke Nukem.

[zealous]

This is just a really simple break down.

Games cost a lot ot make and a lot to ship. Most of the companies that sale the games dont see much of an earning from the sales.

I'm sorry if I'm being rude, but why exactly would anyone believe the statistics on a jpeg image posted on an internet forum by a random person who doesn't even elaborate on the matter?

Maybe at least explain your reasoning rather than just link a supposedly factual pie chart?

2% publisher profit? Seems like a very unrealistic number to me.

We are talking about massive producing companies like EA, Activision etc. Very large companies that have shareholders.

EA invested more than 200 million USD into SWTOR, considering how risky the MMO market is, do you believe they are willing to take a risk on that money based on a 2% payout?

I find that highly doubtful.

Good luck trying to push through that kind of investment at your shareholder meeting, especially considering development studious almost never share the investment risks with the producer.

"Hey guys, let's invest in this new project! It's a highly unstable market at the moment, but hey, we have a fantastic percentage of profit to share with you all if you allow us to invest 200 million bucks! It's 2%!"

[Vehemence]

I always get my games for 30€ euro's or lower.

I will not accept being screwed over like that.

[Organoth]

Single player games, and games in general, have become shorter and it many cases less difficult due to the trend of the market. Those of us who grew up in the starting era of mass home video games, us old timers if you will born in the late 70's and early 80's, are accustomed to very long and often much more difficult games but that's just not what the current generation is interested in. Sure there are always going to be exceptions with in demographics but the gaming industry is just following the current trends over the last few years. Namely the biggest sellers are games that are quick, easy and simple and with active multi-player content.

Companies are focusing so much on that multi-player content that are now even going so far as to offer that content in small and frequent updates and releases that end up costing the player money each time to maximize their profits. The intentionally with hold content to release later on so they can make you pay for it again as they want to you to have to keep paying for that game. $60 is not enough to them, the President of Activison even said he wants to make every $50 video game into a $500 purchase. MW3 is a perfect example of that, you'll have to sign up for an additional subscription service on top of your Xbox Live subscription to access all the multi-player content. You can thank the Devil who runs Activision for that one as state above.

So for those of us who started playing games like the original MoH on original play station we are used to a long single player game because that's all we had available due to high speed internet not being a normal thing for every household. Single player games had to be long and challenging because that's all they had to offer. But fast forward to today and it's the multi-player aspect of games that gets the most attention and will make video game companies the most money.

The world of gaming is a world of causal, and mostly unskilled/undisciplined, players. WoW is starting to suffer from that as well with planned nerfs to content before the content is released, to make it more "accessible" and things like the new Raid finder which will offer players to access content that is specifically designed to be easier. Activision, who owns Blizzard, started changing everything that made WoW popular with serious gamers the moment the buyout was complete. Anyone who likes to think Blizzard is still in charge of their own stuff is delusional, things like selling mounts and pets or any in game item goes directly against what Blizzard promised not to do and it happened the moment they sold out to Activison.

When they stated doing it they back peddled and said they would just never sell gear or weapons but even that is changing. In Diablo 3 you will be able to sell in game items for real life currency through the in game Auction House. You can bet you backside that they are doing that as a test to eventually offer it in WoW and that will be a very, very, very bad thing. WoW will turn in to Second Life and your servers and raids will be filled with people who just looking to make money off they game you are trying to play. People won't sell BoE's for gold when they can sell them for real money and it's going to wreck the in game economy. If you think it will stop gold sellers I have some swamp land in Florida I'd like to sell you. (Sarcasm there mods...)

Activison does not want a solid core of 8 or 9 million dedicated and serious players. They want a revolving door where they are suckering in massive amounts of new players who will never stick around or take the game seriously. Some people will argue that they are a business and they are just trying to make money but anyone who is actually smart about how they do business knows it's a dedicated customer base, loyal to the brand, that make a company successful and not the random impulse buyer who is only going to do business with you on an infrequent basis. The whole year long contract thing is a perfect example of Blizzard suffering the effects of that. The solid core of dedicated players is no longer dedicated and they have either left the game entirely or only keep their subscription active when there is new content worth seeing.

I myself quit for an entire year and only after being back for 2 months I'm seriously considering quitting again. By catering to the mindless and unskilled casual crowd of players the game is no longer fun. Except for the few hardcore guilds out there still the game has become a joke and trying to find people to play with who have IQs higher then their character level has become almost impossible.

For those of you who want to argue that I don't know what I am talking about concerning the video game industry, I have an Uncle who owns his own video game company and has worked for some of the biggest names in the industry before that and my brother who is also in the business who has done work on such games as both Batman Arkham Asylum and City and the last 3 Halo games. So I have direct sources who know exactly what is going on in the business.

[seam]

Ya games for Aussies seem to be massively inflated in price. Pretty shoddy deal. I blame your government.

Personally, I am fine with the $60 tag as long as the game offers at least 15 hours of game play, including useful multiplayer (like BF3). At that game play price ratio, it is similar to going to a movie. The only time I have a problem with that sort of tag is a game that simply does not have that value, like say Duke Nukem.

From what I understand, their average pay is nearly double ours in the US, so it would actually make sense for their games(And everything else) to cost more.

[Scorage]

As a consumer, I care about the quality. Publisher's cut, developing costs, distribution... Means jack to me to be honest. I'll be paying the full price if I want to get the game, so it all comes to what is in the game.

Activision and EA are the two "big bad monsters" people like to talk about. From what I've seen in Gamespot articles, Ricotelli improved the quality of life in the workplaces (Remember, Team Bondi had to go because of quality of life in the workplace.) concerning the studios working for him, while Kotick says "I rather pay my lawyers than my employees."

EA is more blunt if you ask me, and that is the better thing, because I can easily spot what the hell they are trying to do and then make up my mind. Activision? Not so much.

Other than that, it is all about the developers. There are many examples a strict deadline is insufficient to explain the bad quality. (Hello, Duke Nukem.) There are examples where a DLC won't fix the problem. (Wave to camera, Dragon Age 2.) Some developers proved their worth. (Rocksteady, damn man, I was more of a Marvel Guy.) Some give out horribly bad games. (Got no examples for this one, I don't buy those hehehehehehe...)

To justify, one simply has to make an informed purchase. There are many who review games professionally. There are those who simply can't be satisfied. (Hello, Yahtzee, you glorious mofo, you.) What the high price has done for me is that I seldom make preorders compared to past, and I wait at least a week before I make a purchase. (I already mentioned Turkey having to wait. This means that I don't jump on a game when it becomes available on steam either.)

The perfect example these days, is Skyrim.

Bethesda is fucking known for fucking bug ridden games that don't work properly thanks to their priorities meeting deadlines. Skyrim, is their game. There is a gigantic hype about the game. But I still have my own priorities.
- Good third person adaptation compared to the horrible version of Oblivion.
- Relatively bug free compared to other Bethesda games.
My other reasons are more nit-picky. So I'll be waiting until 20th of November before I make my mind about getting Skyrim.

The rant above is why I preordered Arkham City, and why I may not even buy Skyrim. Both games costs 60.

[zealous]

There are examples where a DLC won't fix the problem. (Wave to camera, Dragon Age 2.)

Eye of the beholder, my good man.

I found the flaws of the game itself to be quite tolerable. And the DLCs to be quite good.

But then again, I'm a rabid BW fan. Not the most objective person imaginable in this case.