According to one publisher, the industry needs to address falling software sales by changing the price of that software.
As Namco Bandai Partners vice president and head of sales and marketing Olivier Comte told MCV , publishers are "racing to find secondary business models to support retail sales." Some options include selling games at lower prices, delivering them digitally via episodes, and even trying to entice format holders to lower the cost to produce console and handheld tites. Comte wants all the big game companies to sort of pool their thoughts and opinions and discuss the future; he also compares games to music, an industry that makes money by sales of CDs (admittedly decreasing) and concert tickets. Film is in a similar situation. But gaming is a massive industry as well and as he points out, there's really only "one model," and it seems we require a "secondary model." Said Comte:
"I am convinced that in the future we must change the price of video games – they’re too expensive for the audience. With the cost of development and the retail margins, £40 is a fair price [to us], but for the consumer it is too much. From September to December there are three new blockbusters every week, and consumers just can’t afford to buy all that.
A good price of a game should be around £20 – but for this price we can’t make a ten to 15-hour adventure. So for £20 we should offer consumers four to five hours of gameplay, then after that we can make additional money with DLC."
It's sort of a double-edge sword, though, isn't it? If we want the huge blockbuster productions that push the hardware and provide the gamer with cutting-edge experiences, the cost to the developer will be high. Hence, the cost to us will have to remain the same. If we want to pay less, we'll probably get less. And we should remind everyone once again that 25 years ago, cartridges that boasted 1/1757th of the technology we have now cost the same as games do currently. Take inflation into account alongside that unbelievable technology increase, and we should all be down on our hands and knees thanking the powers that be that games don't cost at least $100.
Granted, game prices fell with the PlayStation generation; new games cost $40, then they went up by $10 increments over the next two generations. But even short games take at least 6-8 hours to complete and most take much longer…if you do the math, compare the prices of DVD/Blu-Ray movies, CDs, etc. to games, and how many entertainment hours we get, $60 isn't a bad deal. That being said, Comte is indeed right: most people can't afford to pay $60 just about every week.
I agree with you on that but considering that being a gamer isn't so cheap I tend to keep money saved on the side for my hobby. Every paycheck I put money into my piggy bank (ninja turtle :P) and use that.
Which turtle?
I totally agree with their statement.
Give me the core game for, say, $30 price. Then, if I find that the game is compelling enough for me to play through and want more of, then I'll plunk down the extra $5 or $10 for each additional add-on module/pack.
I like that way of thinkgin.
I totally hate that way of thinking….
…. one reason of which, I can't sell/trade my DLC.
Or we can get a demo of the game for free to try it out. Then we will be able to shell out that cash for a game we know we will enjoy instead of being only hopefull or basing it on a review (score).
Or you can wait for a price drop
That's what I usually do hellish_devil. I tend to wait until it's well established and did quite well, then it often becomes a GH title. Either that or I wait until it's on sale usually the 20-30 plus tax dollar range. Although, it's rare, but I have bought some that were under $20 (such as Prince of Persia which was $14.99 +taxes new).
I'd possibly welcome a "second option" as long as it didn't take away our present choices.
So basically:
-People who've tried the demo and who want and can afford the full version of a particular title (in it's current physical format) now at the current price point are able to do so.
-Those that would prefer to download said full software can do so.
-Those who are on the fence or don't want to spend that amount up front can possibly go with the lesser priced main version and get the additional levels/chapters if they're so inclined (this would likely be digital and be another downloadable option).
So what say you PSXtremers?
I've always hated how much games were growing up (albiet I wansn't even the one paying for them most of the time, thanks mom), but now that I'm 30+ and wiser, it really isn't a high price for the entertainment value given. Although, I am a small exception to all of this as I haven't paid full retail price for a game in over 5 years as I never preorder to get stupid incentives, nor do I rush out and D1P. I get all my games (if I even do decide to buy them) from Gamefly and even the new releases are only 44.99 tops. Yes, I have to wait 1 extra day to get the game but thats small potatoes imo. Red Dead shipped on Mon from GF and I got it yesterday so I can't complain.
On the downside though, I know that this doesn't directly help out the developers of the games, but I see it as GameFly paid thousands to get tons of copies of said game, so they are supporting the devs for me. I'm no sure if they get some sort of mass discount for buying games in bulk, but that doesn't concern me or my wallet.
I recently made the move to Gamefly myself also.
I have about 40 disk games, and a handful of downloaded ones. I beat most games in 1-2 weeks, and then never touch them again. I can't afford to keep paying the $60 twice a month.
If the games were $30-$40 I would continue to buy them new, but I just can't afford to at the moment.
Last edited by Mr Bitey on 5/20/2010 1:21:14 PM
While I was making less than I do now, if I recall, I bought far more games for the PS2 than I currently do for the PS3. Basically, if I am going to spend 60.00, I had better be dang sure its a game I am going to enjoy for more than just a few hours of gameplay. Thus, I tend to drop my money on games that I can enjoy playing online or games that provide an exceptional experience such as Uncharted or Assasins Creed. With the PS3 I also decided to join Gamefly as a way to test before I buy. I've saved myself many times over by trying a game before I drop some hard earned cash. I've also rarely paid retail for a game, since I almost exclusively now purchase my games through Gamefly where I can expect to pay about half the cost of retail. Yes, the developers should be quite aware that fewer people are buying games like we used to and are becoming far more reserved in spending…especially at a 60.00 mark also knowing that DLC may also be a factor down the road. These aren't 40.00 games anymore…more and more they are getting closer to 100.00 which is just outrageous.
Yup, tis why I feel for those that get hoodwinked and bamboozed buy paying, 59.99 plus tax ($65), then a few months later $14.99 for a new map pack with 2 recycled maps, and then again a month or 2 after that another $14.99 for another map pack, and then 3 months later an entirely new game comes out with a shiny new package and slight name change and the vicious cycle starts again. To each there own though. Some people find value in that.
the current price model works pretty well for me. I buy the games I "must have" on launch. Anything else I can't afford waits until it drops in price so I can pick it up then. I always have lots to play.
I think $60 is fair for most PS3 exclusives. Its paying $60 for mulitplats is what bothers me.
Last edited by Jawknee on 5/20/2010 12:54:05 PM
agreed .
Multiplats should cost less based on the fact that it's a lower quality product
And the fact that the have two audiences from which to make profit from
"Lower quality" could mean a lot of things. Specifically, what about multiplat games makes them worth less than $60?
So then Arkham Asylum and Dead Space are of lower quality than, say, Haze, simply because they're available on multiple consoles (Haze was $60 at launch, right?)?
Granted, there are examples of multiplat games that I would consider to be less worth my time than exclusives, but just because a game is multiplat doesn't by default make it worth less (to me).
I played GTA IV a lot more than I did Heavenly Sword.
I don't think it makes sense to clump multiplats into the same category and bash that category.
If it's good, it's good, if it's 5 hours of gameplay, it's 5 hours of gameplay.
Jawknee I agree with that. Based in what Compte said you would think that all games for the next gen systems would boost Ps3 exclusive quality. Seeing as they don't I believe games should infact have a variety of pricing that is relative to the quality and what 'that' game has to offer.
Mulitplats in general tend to be lower quality and have less content. Some i would say are worth it but the great majority aren't. Especially when one version comes in full HD while the other doesn't due to pure laziness or neglect.
*cough*Rockstar*cough*
Well, except GTA & RDR they're both worth 60$
Even the best games of the year are not worth 60 bucks.
Last edited by StangMan80 on 5/20/2010 6:31:32 PM
If you can make more money selling 30 apples to 30 people for $1 each, as opposed to selling only 10 apples to 10 people for $2 each, then do it.
Just don't sell me half an apple for that buck, because we'll be back at square one.
Somehow I feel like you just dropped some serious knowledge on my ass, but it was so intense, I got confused as soon as you said 30 apples.
"Just don't sell me half an apple for that buck, because we'll be back at square one."
Whatever you are teaching, I am your new deciple.
… Uh… ok… carry the one… uh…
Once you cut the apple it starts to get brown too.
I totaly agree Underdog I have MW and have no thoughts of getting the second. It just seemed rushed to me and wasn't that much better then the first. The first one I loved and put so many hours online and playing with my friends on plit screen. I think the makers of the second said "the first was so good we can through a quick one together and sell like crazy" I have no interests in any further COD:( Shame on you.
hahaha, i can already already predict activision's response. $60 is too much? we should be charging more! Hmmmm, so we can charge more for DLC…. I guess were not charging enough since people ate up our modern warfare 2 rehashes.
Theres something that bugs me when i play MW2. I see buildings that were used in MW1 that were "updated" by making it look old. i wish they used new models for the new game and not just reuse stuff.
lol no kidding. My friends and I always lament that fact. We've all decided we're happy with the current modern warfare we have. No more COD titles for us! Anyone else?
Me thinks we shall see Activisions response in November with the release of Black Oops. Hope that isn't their unveiling of pay to play.
Oops I replyed on Hezzron and wanted to reply on Underdog.
That's why I buy my games off Ebay, don't care if there used and have a few light scratches, I got a resurfacing tool that will take care of it.
Since it's hard to scratch a blu ray I still have yet to see a scratch on any used game I bought.
Off topic: I can't find any support on the site about what points under user cp are used for. Anyone know what they're good for?
The username with the most points at the end of 2014 will get the infamous blue PS3.
i dont care about the price. if i cant get some games as soon as they come out i wait a couple of months till the price drops and i always buy them off the internet.
off all the publishers out there I'm suprised that one actually figured why game sales are dropping and gamers turning to the second-hand market.
So they want to sell us a 5 hour game for $30, and then sell us about 5 hours worth of DLC for, let me guess: another $30 or so? Heck of a deal.
I just wait until the prices drop. The only time I pay full price is if it's my favorite game in the whole world or something. I'm having a great time playing all the stuff that was hot 6 – 12 months ago, which I bought for $15 – $40.
I hear ya. Some people just want the latest and greatest all the time though, so they don't have patience to wait the 6-12 months. Some of it I can understand because of the online multiplayer portion of it. If you wait too long and you try to go online you won't find anybody on the servers, so that part of the game for you is obsolete. However if you are getting it for a bargain price and don't really care about online then it works great for ya.
My only problem with that is the amount of space all that DLC will take up over time. It would be awfully annoying to have to get to the point your hard drive is packed with info and be forced to re-download games every time you wanted to play them.
I'm still a fan of the actual collectors side of things. Seems like it's only a matter of time before we all stop buy the physical copies of games. That'll make me a sad panda.
That was my first thought. So we save money on the initial game but now if we want more content, we may start filling up our hard drives at a faster rate. For some people, I can see that as a problem and they'd had to upgrade their hard drives more frequently. That's not such a great idea.
Eventually, we will see where we don't save much of anything on our physical consoles. There will be these huge servers that keep track of all our info that way I can log in from anywhere and play a game right from where I left off.
What's strange to me is that all "new" technology is expensive and with time it gets cheaper like the PS3 has and Blu Ray movies but if PS3 games are on Blu Ray why hasn't the cost gone down on games? Iron Man 2 reportedly cost over 300 million dollars to make but I bet when it comes out on Blu Ray it will be 20 bux brand new. I know they recoup a lot of that back in the theater but these studios are huge with huge wallets so no one would hurt if these games were at least 10 dollars cheaper.Probably sell a lot more.
They're charging for the content, not the media. At least, that's what they'll say.
Well, considering how fast game prices drop, soon after release, I don't have a problem with the $60 per title MSRP. AAA titles deserve that price as I get my money's worth every time and the lower titles tend to drop $10-$15 after one month and if it is made by Ubisoft, then it goes down $30 by the second month. If retailers aren't able to push out a certain amount by their own deadline, then they start to reduce the prices and eventually clearance the stock out. It really depends on what game titles you want and how soon after release you want to play them.
I know my statements only apply to the U.S. region as pricing is much, much higher in other countries and I don't know how some of the people can afford those prices. I tip my hat to you.
Wasn't a problem in the ps2 generation
I blame Microsoft
They've ruined the image of multiplat games*
Both by being the lowest common denominator and then presenting them as exclusives.
Now wait a minute! You were there just like I was there. No game on earth was selling 4 million on day one 25 years ago. Of course the production costs have gone up since that time, but so has the consumer base. By a landslide my friend. If the consumer base stayed the same then yeah, games would cost $300 each. Since the consumer base is at least 1757 times bigger, game prices have stayed in the same ball park.
Last edited by Alienange on 5/20/2010 2:15:38 PM
Er…you're forgetting the cost it takes to make a game now compared to then.
It costs more now, but they sell a lot more copies. I was trying to say that it balances itself out.
Not to mention you can order games online. Never could do that before. Now even people suffering from agoraphobia can buy games. That was a previously untapped market. =)