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

[Jeff Kleist]

Sony seems to have seen success with its Greatest Hits titles, why not offer games at that price initially?

Because they've already gotten into the black, so they can afford to charge less because it's all gravy

Do you know why Sony titles are $39.99? Because they don't have to pay themselves a $10 licensing fee per game.

 

[Adam Tyner]

The MSRP for each game is (I think) set by the console manufacturer.

I have no personal knowledge on this front, so if what I'm about to saying is wrong, feel free to correct me...but I very much doubt that the console manufacturer looks at titles on a case by case basis and decides what the MSRP will be. That sounds much more like the territory of the title's publisher.

 

[CameronS]

I just wanted to say that I paid around $80 for both Wave Race 64 and Killer Instinct Gold, and I paid on average $60 for everything else in the N64 and SNES era.

Compared to that, I think games are prices extremely well today.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I just wanted to say that I paid around $80 for both Wave Race 64 and Killer Instinct Gold, and I paid on average $60 for everything else in the N64 and SNES era

And they were all worth it, weren't they? KI Gold was my first N64 game, and I almost died when I thought a few years ago the cart had accidentally been erased. Luckily, I tried it out last summer and it worked fine. I played it for about 3 days just to relive it.

 

[BrianB]

Well it sort of depends on how much it took to make the game. If a game uses an old game engine or was made very quickly and very cheaply, then they can release it at a lower than normal price.

Utter nonsense. Game development costs (and what engine it's used) is irrelevant in the game price on the shelves. Was GTA Vice City cheaper because it leveraged Renderware & GTA3? Generally a new game is released at a cheaper price because either the publisher is aiming it at the "value market" (ie budget range), or the game is not of the quality that it will sell sufficiently at $49.99. Of course, there's always exceptions to these rules, but generally, that's how it is.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Was GTA Vice City cheaper because it leveraged Renderware & GTA3?

Vice City used a different engine from GTA3. It was also in development before GTA3.

 

[Trevor Harveaux]

Utter nonsense. Game development costs (and what engine it's used) is irrelevant in the game price on the shelves. Was GTA Vice City cheaper because it leveraged Renderware & GTA3? Generally a new game is released at a cheaper price because either the publisher is aiming it at the "value market" (ie budget range), or the game is not of the quality that it will sell sufficiently at $49.99. Of course, there's always exceptions to these rules, but generally, that's how it is.

Development costs DO effect prices, just look at value PC titles, and there are some value console games. Morgan is right on this one. He is actually right on this whole thread. Freaky. =) Games with lower development cost DO sometimes* (*that's the key word here) cost less on launch. XBOX examples are LOONS (or is it TOONS, I forget), and Tetris. The console manufactures set up a few price points, and it is up to the game publisher/developer to decide which point the game should be at.

GTA did not have low development costs, I think you can agree on that. But you are right about it not really being based on the engine used. It is more based on overall costs and perceived value.

 

[BrianB]

Morgan is right on this one. He is actually right on this whole thread. Freaky. =)

What you're talking about, Trevor, is NOT what Morgan is saying. Morgan's saying Sony look at the engine of the game etc & come up with a retail cost for the game. He's completely & utterly wrong with that. It's upto the publisher to decide the cost of a game, not Sony et al.

 

[Allen_Appel]

Generally a new game is released at a cheaper price because either the publisher is aiming it at the "value market" (ie budget range), or the game is not of the quality that it will sell sufficiently at $49.99. ... It's up to the publisher to decide the cost of a game, not Sony et al.

Maybe I'm just a cheapskate, but $50 is a lot of money to me (I wonder if everyone saying "I paid ..." really did pay for those items themselves). I have to be very sure I'm going to get a lot of gameplay out of a title to spend that much (a Halo, GTA3 or VC, NFL2K3, etc.). That said, I'd buy three games at once if they were priced at $25. I think there are a lot of inferior releases that are being pushed on us for $50 in order to rake in the impulse buyers before bad word of mouth spreads, but the taste might not be as bitter if they'd been priced lower in the first place. It seems doubly ludicrous when console prices are falling to the equivalent of a few games. Is there a sliding royalty/license fee scale in the games industry (I'm a writer, and publishing contracts are structured that if X number of books are sold, you get $, when Y number are sold, you'll get $$)? I'd rather make $100 from a hundred sales at a dollar each than from one $100 sale.

 

[Trevor Harveaux]

$50 isn't a whole lot, and my parents (when i was a kid) NEVER paid for my games, we saved and saved for them. I still think we are getting a bargain for our $50. it's the same price games were 15 years ago, and the games today are 1000x the quality. Granted I get some games free, but I've still bought many, many, games at $50 and don't feel like I overpaid once. Well maybe once or twice, but I generally rent before I buy. I currently own over 20 XBOX, GameCube, PS2 games (including Steel Battalion), and a hoard of older games and systems. I've spent $1000 in the last year alone, and I'd spend it all over again if given the chance.

What you're talking about, Trevor, is NOT what Morgan is saying. Morgan's saying Sony look at the engine of the game etc & come up with a retail cost for the game. He's completely & utterly wrong with that. It's upto the publisher to decide the cost of a game, not Sony et al.

If that what he was saying, then I agree with you. However I took what he wrote differently.

 

[Christ Reynolds]

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

well, you dont have us ALL beat. you just have everyone beat that didnt get neo geo at first. which includes me of course. $199 a game? yikes. but i'd like to add that i dont mind games being a little more expensive. the amount of video games that i buy, the price increase isnt worth getting upset about. i'd rather have a good game than an almost good game and save $10. its like bitching about the price of gas. you cant use your car without it, and you will have to pay what they want you to pay. so why complain? i NEVER bitch about the price of gas, a year or two ago, my relatives came over from scotland, during our gas 'crisis'. they asked us how much the gas was, and they told us how many pence/liter it was. after the conversion, it came out to more than $8.00 a gallon. and we were paying what, low $2s? its my opinion that we have way too many cars in this country, we need sophisticated rail systems here badly. ah, we were talking about video games, right? well...i figure as long as the industry keeps pumping out decent games, i'll keep buying them.

CJ

 

[Damien]

i think that game prices are fine. IF you compare the gamecube to the N64, there is a steep price decline. If you have a ps2, you can get 20 or so very high quality games for $15-20. I noticed that xbox games will drop in price pretty fast if they don't do well in sales/get pressure: for example buffy, quantum redshift, Metal gear solid 2, Serious Sam, and others were dropped by 40-70% within weeks of there release. IF paying $45 at the used store/catching bb/cc deals isn't good enough, then you ought to see half.com./ebay, games that came out LAST MONTH are selling for $30...you just need the PAITIENCE....

 

[Jeff Kleist]

$50 isn't a whole lot, and my parents (when i was a kid) NEVER paid for my games, we saved and saved for them.

My parents refused to buy me a Sega Master System when I was 10, so I got a paper route and bought it myself. It took me 6 months of saving (they made me permanently save half my money earned). They thought I'd give up, but I have my Master system in a place of honor on my helf right now.

They'd buy me a gmae for my birthday and Xmas. I have bought every game system I've ever owned (Dreamcast and SegaCD excluded, both Xmas presents) and 95% of my games with my own sweat

 

[Iain Lambert]

A lot of the concern about pricing comes from Europe, where the Genesis/Snes era was missed by many, in favour of Amigas and Atari STs - comments about £70 for SNES Street Fighter 2 aren't that wide, because we all bought the computer versions at £20-£25 instead.

As I see it, the main useful argument here is that I didn't get a single game for birthday or Christmas last year; my friends, family and I just aren't in the £40 present buying bracket most of the time, so I ended up with stacks of DVDs, albums and books instead. These are all sales 'lost' to the games industry, that wouldn't be if they could have bought me Timesplitters 2 or whatever instead.

I can afford to buy games, simply because with several consoles I've got enough of a back catalogue to choose from not to need the brand new games (latest score - limited edition Ico for £15, for instance). Its just that they would sell more of them if they were closer to present-buying prices new.

 

[Romier S]

(I wonder if everyone saying "I paid ..." really did pay for those items themselves).

I spent damn near over 600 dollars in November of this past year alone. My wife is fairly sure we paid for it ourselves. Lord knows my parents aren't going to listen to a 25 year old grown man asking for the next Metroid game.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

I just wait a month or two and that's for PC Games or Xbox games and they drop in price usually as much as $20 I don't feel the need to get new games instantly I always have something to play

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Maybe I'm just a cheapskate, but $50 is a lot of money to me

Then wait until the games are cheaper. Simple as that.

 

[Paul Richardson]

Hell, if you are willing to wait you can get bargains. I just bought Buffy for the Xbox today at EB B&M...they are charging $9.99 for a NEW copy.

 

[Christ Reynolds]

I read something (most likely in EGM) about how GTA:VC was in development before GTA3 and that it's engine was up and running first. If anything, GTA3 ran GTA:VC's engine. I think. I'm pretty sure at least that I read VC was in development first (which could have just been planning stages and such). I seriously doubt they cranked out VC right after finishing GTA3, so it had to have been in development at least before 3 was done.

doesnt matter which was released first. i think brians point is, one game's code base was used for both.

CJ

 

[BrianB]

Quote:

But would they sell the more than double the total sold before it'd need to make it all worthwhile? And how would that affect costs etc? I've read those FP threads too, Iain