$60 too much for a game?

vbimport

#1

I just posted the article $60 too much for a game?.

This early in the console battle we can conclude that not many people are willing to drop sixty bucks for a game. Game industry veteran Kelly Flock openly states that he ‘hates the $60 price point’…

Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/14239-60-too-much-for-a-game.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/14239-60-too-much-for-a-game.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

That is one reason I don’t buy console systems anymore. 60$ is just the bottom of the barrell. The games can be even higher. You factor in getting extra equipment like controllers, memory cards, ect. and you could easily drop an extra $200+ beyond what you paid for the console system because those items are also price inflated.


#3

$60! If you convert some British game prices you’re looking more like $90! (£40-45 some games)


#4

Especially when the same game is released on PS3, X360, and PC. PC version may only cost 40 while console versions cost 60. Well, this is where they get compensated for the loss when they sell you the consoles for sure.


#5

It really depends on what game your talking about. I will agree that 60 dollars across the board is too expensive because lets face it not all games are equal in development and quality so they shouldnt be equal in price either. I would be more than happy to pay 60 dollars for such games as Halo 3, Bioshock, and most of the other games that are AAA in quality and have had massive 3+ years in development by substantially large development teams. On the other hand I do not believe that games like the sports franchises, racing games, movie tie in games etc… should be anywhere near 60 bucks in fact those games shouldnt even be 50 bucks. Lets take Madden for instance, how much development do you think goes into the upgrdes that those games produce each year? It cant be much as the game itself is already written and coded. They simply tweak the game and add some new features and that certainly does not deserve a 60 dollar a year price tag. So really the bottom line lies with quality and development. The studios that make great games and have huge budgets deserve to put a 60 dollar tag on thier games and lets face it those are the studios that really need those higher prices. As for the rest of the games on the market 60 dollars is a rip off and its only going to drive people away from buying more games. You would think these people would understand the concept of selling items for less but still making more profit by moving more units. Instead of going to a 60 dollar market they should have tested going to a 40 dollar market. Who knows they might have sold 3 times as many units as before and dramatically increased profits even tho they were reducing prices. I know I would certainly buy more games if they were cheaper and I would be more likely to buy games that werent guaranteed to be AAA as well. One thing is for sure and that is that I dont buy nearly as many games as I did before and I am far more picky on what games I do buy. It was only a ten dollar increase but lets face it, seeing a 60 dollar price tag on most of the games that get released is not a good thing and its going to scare off alot of people at times, me included.


#6

I forgot to mention that Piracy side to this argument. The higher they keep making these prices the more the piracy industry is going to flourish and they get no money from pirates. I download TV shows from the interent and I see videogames posted all of the times on some of the sites that I vist and there are a ton of people downloading them. Pricing caused people to start pirating music, pricing caused people to start pirating movies and pricing is going to cause people to start pirating games. We have already seen the mod chip community grow by leaps and bounds over the last 4-5 years and its only going to continue to increase when these companies start overpricing thier products. The best way to fight piracy is by lowering prices.


#7

If the game companies want to lower the price, how about starting by ripping out all of the useless and ineffective anti-piracy and DRM carp they keep shoving down everyone’s throats. The garbage doesn’t work anyway, so why increase production costs for no good reason, and annoy the actual paying customers? As Mike said, lower prices will combat piracy more effectively. Also, making better games would help. 10 hours of gameplay isn’t enough to warrant $60. 500 hours might be. Replayability, co-op modes, head to head, teams, etc. all add to the fun and potential for a game to keep its audience captive. A single linear story with only one gameplay mode isn’t going to cut it. Yes, it is a bit of a “chicken and egg” thing, but you can’t win without risk, and playing it safe in the game market will only prolong the death cycle. :slight_smile:
This message was edited at: 08-02-2008 23:46


#8

That’s why I stayed out of this generations console war & think I’ll stay that way. When I can usually get a PC game for $40 at first release or $30 after a couple months, why would I even look at a console. Sure, it takes a few hundred to keep the video card current, but I still break even on game prices & I can do WAY more things on my PC than a console.


#9

I don’t know if some people will remember but back in the early 80’s, Nintendos games were like %1000 inflated and the console was closed to 3rd party developers. So before all this “pirates” are to blame for the price increase is a bunch of hubbub. The fact is all these companies hire mathematicians or have a program that calculate, using Calculus *cough, the maximum revenue they can get by selling the game or whatever at x price. Trust me, they have formulas for this kind of stuff.


#10

Piracy will continue no matter what. Using it as a reason to lower prices is pointless. Think about it. Do you really think Joe Pirate is going to quit pirating games because they’re only $50, $40, or even $30 vs. $60. So naive if you do. Songs are less than a buck each on various music services, yet millions of songs are still being illegally downloaded and/or copied. ONE DOLLAR! But I think for the average game, $60 is far too much. Games with enormous replayability, maybe it isn’t. (I wouldn’t pay 60 ever, but I’ve logged over 900 hours playing Battlefield 2 and 2142 each, so the $50 I paid for each, is technically a steal. Problem is, if they were $60…who do you think gets that extra 10 bucks…the top brass of the company, so hell no to $60. If Joe Programmer or Miss Audio Tech got a bonus check or raise to coincide with that bloated price, I’d be all for it. Since this is the real world, we all know who gets the real money and bonuses.) And as stated previously, why the hell is the SAME damn game $60 for Mr. Console yet only $40-$50 for Mr. PC? That’s right, Microslop is LOSING money on the XBox, it’s only worth 70 Billion, it should be worth 75 Billion. It all makes sense now.


#11

I don’t see the problem here, all I read are comments like these. “See what happens when software and games end up with DRM and are close to impossible to backup. The manufactures get greedy and gouge the consumers.” They brought us Hi Def games on consoles. They also sold us high end consoles for a loss. Instead of bitching and whining about the prices of these new games and consoles, go out and by an older generation console and games for the price range you ask for. No one is forcing you to buy it and play it, it is your choice. If you don’t like it, or can’t afford it, then stop complaining about your bad choice of expensive hobbies. Accept it, and shut up!
This message was edited at: 13-02-2008 02:38