It's time for us to do something about game prices. (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Kleist]

Back in the day, "big" games, like Final Fantasy, Phantasy Star, and the other ones that took a long time to make, cost more. Average games cost the regular $50.

Morgan, that's not it at all. Until FF7 was a HUGE hit in the marketplace, RPGs were seen as a very small, niche market in the US. That's why Nintendo didn't release half the FF games in the US.

Because of the large media prices, (PS4 was 24Mb) and the percieved limited audience, the prices on the titles were sky high. When PS4 came out, the Genesis was on it's very last legs, and sega had even dumped their keepcases in favor of paper and that ugly red Genesis logo. So a niche title (which they knew the fans were dying for) combined with 3MB of ROM (1997 prices was around $30 at manufacture) and a dying system=$89.99 SRP

I don't believe FF3 was EVER supposed to be a $103, the import sure, but since Best Buy doesn't carry imports, they were jakking you good. I think FF3's SRP was $79.99

And yes, Neo Geo ownership puts us all to shame! $150 a cart baby!

Only a SuperGun (basically an interface that uses a JAMMA harness to plug in arcade boards to your TV) owner is more hardcore!

 

[BrianB]

Only a SuperGun (basically an interface that uses a JAMMA harness to plug in arcade boards to your TV) owner is more hardcore!

I dunno - I think a Neo home system is still more hardcore - an arcade MVS + Supergun is higher initial cost, but hte games are pretty cheap now (comparitively!) whilst the homecarts are still extortionate.

 

[Andre F]

Man I got you all beat on prices of video games. I had a Neo geo when it first came out. NUFF SAID!!

I remember drooling over those games...never had the chance to play any though.
-Andre F

 

[Jeff Kleist]

The only games that were worth the cash were Samurai Shodown, Fatal Fury, and later the KOF series. At $150 a cart it was hard not to drool
However, the system was a total boon for arcade operators. For $200 they could get a brand new game and artwork for the system. It's a lot easier to make back $200 than several thousand for a complete cabinet

 

[Brandon_H]

If only 25 percent of games are profitable -- a figure which I can believe -- then frankly, only 25 percent DESERVE to be profitable. Any visit to the video-game store these days reveals dozens, if not hundreds, of titles that had no business being green-lighted.

How many half-baked RTS games, cloned FPS titles, and dime-a-dozen arcade racers can the marketplace really support? Obviously not as many as the industry is publishing.

Either game execs are pushing studios to make derivative, uninspired tripe ("Hey, 'Grand Theft Auto III' sold millions, bring me that,") or many studios have such a lack of creative talent that they can only produce derivative, uninspired tripe. Either way, it needs to stop.

Who wouldn't prefer to see store shelves stocked with fewer, high-quality titles, instead of the aisles of crap we see today?

 

[James D S]

*raises hand*

Considering how much crap the inductry forces us to sift through to find worthy titles, I'm thinking 25% is rather high. They're (the gaming industry) doing better than they ought to be.

And I'm glad someone finally killed that "movie prices analogy." I keep getting tired of that one getting thrown about when the two industries couldn't be more different.

"You made your bed, now lay in it."

 

[Aaron Copeland]

And I'm glad someone finally killed that "movie prices analogy." I keep getting tired of that one getting thrown about when the two industries couldn't be more different.

I still think the comparison has merit, especially when talking about how much entertainment time vs money you get from each.

Why is it unfair to talk about how movie prices have gone up while games prices have remained the same? The costs of production have gone up for both. Also, shouldn't the increase in the home movie industry help offset the need for higher ticket prices?

Aaron

 

[Jeffrey_Scotts]

My point is, we dont make games for the money, but because we love games. Asking developers to lower games costs will result in less innovative games and more rip-offs and sequels.

I agree with what Trevor said in his post. Also, I strongly feel connected to the computer guys as well. It takes a whole lot of BRAIN POWER to code games and they keep getting better and more demanding (i.e. Doom III). A good computer person with an MBA doesn't come cheap and the talent needed for development isn't that plentiful. Anyone that's REALLY good can get a job anytime for a game company making at least a 6 digit income net salary. Add the cost of your computer guys to the cost of the art, CGI, sound room, music scores, etc. and I'm amazed they can do it for the price we see now.

So, I must say that in the end I don't support the topic of this thread and do support the computer guys. When compared to other cost like movie development it's nothing. The studios hope for a huge success for ticket sales just like the game developers do. But, there are FAR more people buying movie tickets than ever will be buying a certain game. Therefore, prices must be far more than the cost of a movie ticket or DVD. You just can't compare any other industry with the gaming industry, the difference is night and day.

In the end, I'm happy to see prices just the way they are.

 

[Chris Bardon]

I guess the problem is that there are just so many titles out there right now, that it's tough to have too much invested in a single game. Everyone is always looking forward to the next great thing, and lots of games end up going by the wayside. If you look at the amount of time you get out of your $50-$80, you're actually getting pretty cheap entertainment. Even going back to my $110 for ff3-when you consider that the game had about 70 hours to it, that's still only 1.57 per hour of entertainment. There's not much that you can do for less than two bucks an hour...

 

[Sean Oneil]

One reason that games have remained priced the same for the last ten years, and could continue to be priced the same for the foreseeable future, is because the market is growing, and the number of gamers has been, and continues to increase.

There are probably enough gamers out there now, that a software publisher could actually lower the price of their software and still make money on a good game.. But they choose to milk the market.

What is happening with War craft, and NWN, and various other games, is akin to movie theaters charging a higher ticket price for Star Wars or Spiderman then every other film they are showing.

But so far, people have been willing to pay the high price.

 

[Dave F]

The reason that the movie/game industry analogy doesn't work too well is because the movie industry has multiple revenue streams (ticket sales, home video sales), whereas the the game industry has one. Ticket sale prices have increased & home video prices have decreased. It's pretty hard to equate that to the price of a video game. Throw in online fees such as Everquests, and it becomes even tougher to make valid comparisons. There are just too many differences, IMO.

-Dave

 

[James D S]

The reason that the movie/game industry analogy doesn't work too well is because the movie industry has multiple revenue streams (ticket sales, home video sales)...

and don't forget rental, TV (multiple markets), merchandising, product placement, etc, etc.,...

In fact, a movie can flop at the boxoffice and still rake in huge money. ...For YEARS after the fact!

 

[Aaron Copeland]

In fact, a movie can flop at the boxoffice and still rake in huge money. ...For YEARS after the fact!

OK, but doesn't that support point about ticket prices going up but not game prices? Seems to me that all those various sources of revenue would reduce the need for higher ticket prices. Games have no such aftermarkets except maybe when they appear on a handheld years later (i.e. the NES and SNES Mario games on GBA). Well, they do have rentals, but that is pretty small compared to movie rentals. Anyway, the point is that game prices have been much more steady than movie prices even without all those extra revenue sources.

Aaron

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Games also go OOP within maybe a year of release, if not sooner, depending on the popularity. And only the best ones are rereleased. We're lucky we got Final Fantasy Tactics again.

Some of the biggest games cost several million dollars to make and around 1 to 2 years, if not more. The average movie costs a lot more and takes less than a year.

I think a better comparison MIGHT be TV shows. Some shows when they come out are either good, and thus, highly publicized, and thus, more people watch, but the only revenue they bring in is what they get from advertising. If a show is good enough, they bring it back (like sequels to games). If it stops being good, they cancel it and maybe make a spinoff. A while after it has been out, they syndicate it (rereleases, Best Seller collections). And hell, after a while longer they make a movie!

 

[Brandon_H]

One also must remember that movie-ticket prices are ultimately a function of exhibitors, not studios.

Studios have, indeed, raised their royalties for ticket sales to movies in recent years. That's one reason box-office prices rose -- exhibitors needed to maintain their margins.

But numerous other factors also have affected ticket prices. One big one: Major theater chains borrowed millions of dollars in the mid-1990s to build megaplexes all over the country in markets that turned out to be less than profitable. Many of the chains are highly leveraged and have large amounts of debt to service.

Then, one must consider the other factors movie theaters must deal with -- labor costs to staff each theater, inventory cost of goods, the cost of upgrading and maintaining equipment (Those new digital projectors George Lucas and Robert Rodriguez have been raving about cost a small fortune.)

While even poorly performing movies ultimately make up for box-office failures through home-video sales, cable rights, merchandising, etc., theater operators see none of that money. They only see revenue from ticket sales at their screens.

So, while both the movie and video-game industries produce entertainment, most of the business-model similarities end there. The comparison just doesn't hold up under close scrutiny, in my opinion.

 

[MikeAlletto]

I don't care what game developers and publishers say to try and justify charging people $60 for a game. I don't care that they worked long hours or it cost them obscene amounts of money to snag that one movie star to do a cameo in the game. Its their job. I don't care about whatever their reasons are, because it is THEIR reasons. They are there to make money which is fine. And I'm out there to buy their products, but I flat out refuse to spend $60 on something that I'll play for a few weeks then put aside. There are so many other better things I can spend my money on.

 

[Mike__D]

I don't care that they worked long hours or it cost them obscene amounts of money to snag that one movie star to do a cameo in the game. Its their job.

Then obviously you have no appreciation for their creations. What you seem to want is something for nothing...
Mike D.
P.S. Are you one of those types that tips waiter's less than 15%, because it's THIER JOB to serve you?

 

[MikeAlletto]

Then obviously you have no appreciation for their creations. What you seem to want is something for nothing...

I didn't say that and you know I didn't say that. Actually those people who do all the work probably have zero say in how much the thing costs anyways so they shouldn't be justifying it by what amount of time they put in in the first place. They will get their paycheck no matter what. If the game is good and they did a good job then they get to keep their job and do more.

Anyone who would pay $95 for a game is treating it more than a hobby. Sounds more like an obsession to me. But I guess what I consider a waste of money other people see it as expendable income. Fine with me, you made your money, spend it as you want.

I can't buy any game around here and return it and you just can't walk up to your local blockbuster and rent a PC game. I'm still trying to figure out where the costs are coming from. They cost less than movies to make (although that gap is shrinking quickly).

I just find it extremely hard to understand why Warcraft 3 is priced as high as it is. I'm sure it'll be a cool game, but $60 cool? I'll wait for a demo to decide that.

 

[DaveF]

Games also go OOP within maybe a year of release

I see "old" games around for years. In the past year, or so, I've bought: Half-life, Diablo, Starcraft & Broodwar, Descent: Freespace, and Tony Hawk 2. I've considered Fallout 1 & 2, Half-Life: Opposing Forces and a few others. I believe these games are all older than a year (and HL is at least 3 years old). The great games remain in print for quite a while. And the bargain-bin selection is really good, with quality titles like Fallout 1 & 2 available for

 

[Mike__D]

I didn't say that and you know I didn't say that.

You are right, you didn't say it, but the "tone" of your post made seem like that. Then again, tone is hard to portray in just words on a message board.

I guess I'm more on the hardcore side of gaming, and it is slightly obsessive, but at the same time, I do have a life, so it hasn't (and won't) completely take over.

Mike D.