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.
Movies cost a lot to make, more then most games. The big budget movies make alot of money back from cinema sales but for years after they're making money from the BluRay/DVD sales which I think is considerably more over time. So why not have games sell at the same price as movie BluRays/DVD's?
If the games are top quality they'll keep selling for years. Especially with the amount of games coming out, personally if I don't buy a game within a few weeks of it's release, I may have to wait for it 2nd hand with preference to forking out the full price for the latest blockbuster new release that may of moved up the list in the mean time.
Besides, by selling new games at cheaper prices means that they'll be actually collecting money from game sales, something they don't do with traded in games. To me this would be better then EA's plan to charge a few quid for the online gaming regarding 2nd hand game purchases.
I'm sure someone else will have the figures to support to dismiss this idea, but I'm personally of the opinion that 2nd hand games sell more, though I may very well be wrong. So why not compete?
Of course I just realised that the price of 2nd hand games would probably go down too so my point is really a non runner from the start. Ignore my post please 🙂
Last edited by frostface on 5/20/2010 2:22:48 PM
Rockstar apparently spent $100 million on Red Dead Redemption, so apparently movies do not cost that much more to make than games…
I bet it wasn't $100M.
I'd rather pay $60 for a full game than ending up spending over $60 in total for all the extra dlc that was supposed to be in the game in the first place.
While I'm glad that one major publisher is talking about price sensitivity, there is one thing that they say that confuses me.
"From September to December there are three new blockbusters every week, and consumers just canât afford to buy all that."
OK, I get that there are some hardcore gamers who buy every game, but most gamers do not. Most people will buy fewer than half of the major games launched. The logic here seems to be that $60 is too much for folks to drop every week – and it is, I agree. But how about $60 a month? Remember gaming is a luxury, not a necessity. If they push the price lower then something on the other end of the equation must change. Either the quality or the quantity (as in the amount of content or game length) will have to reduce to reduce costs to a point where a lower price point can happen.
I also find it odd that this is coming from Namco. They have games that were already released outside Japan on the 360, that have been ported to the PS3, but only in Japan. The costs involved with localizing these games are certainly limited compared to developing a new game, so from their point of view, why not localize some of these games and release them? Even if they are released as downloadable titles rather than full retail releases (reduces costs…).
Perhaps that makes too much sense?
Gamers keep saying back in the Atari ages games were more expensive than now, considering inflation. That only targeted a small group of gamers that are willing to pay that price. Games have grew to a larger audience, like cheap games. If people keep thinking games are cheaper now, you're wrong. That is why developers are racking in more revenue, just not profit.
I believe $50 games in the PS2 ages were expensive to begin with, but it was not noticeable because of the dominance in the PS2. Developers spend all their time and effort in one platform, lesser graphical appeal, greater amount of audience. If they want to lower game prices, one system has to dominate this cycle again.
This is why I believe Wii singlehanded ruined the generation. The gimmick brought more audience in, but it scattered the audience across the consoles. The hardcore games being on HD consoles, while most of the audience are on the Wii. I know many of my friends that bought a PS2, upgraded to Wii, disappointed but didn't want to go PS3/Xbox, because they didn't want to invest on another platform for new games.
You're wrong about the past. In those days, video games were seen as toys and targeted children (mostly). The PARENTS were the consumers, and $60 was a REALLY expensive toy.
Sorry, I think you're way wrong here. Simple math will tell you the story. Games are cheaper now than they were in the 80s – without a doubt. I take your point about the fragmentation of the market, but I think what you're seeing is a separation between 'serious' gamers who buy multiple games from several genre each year, and casual gamers who buy just a few games – generally very accessible games – each year. Both types of gamer existed with the PS2, but the distinct segmentation of the market between the 'expensive' HD consoles and the inexpensive SD Wii has split the market.
It might not be a bad thing for game developers and publishers to stop and consider for a moment who their audiences are, how many games they will purchase, and what price sensitivity exists in each demographic/market segment.
I agree with Ben here. The parents really were the consumers. My mom bought all my games growing up lol.
I think the only major issue with having to buy a cheaper 'core' game, then pay for add-ons, is the way Trophies would have to be organized.
The game company certainly wouldn't offer a Platinum trophy for just finishing the core game.
But then consumers will be complaining, because they had no intention of getting the add-ons.
…hmm… I suppose there's no pleasing everyone!
Game makers are not in the poor house so it would be nice if they passed the savings on to us kind of like Wal-Marts philosophy. I have noticed as of late that Wal-mart makes it a little easier on the pocket by giving Ecards with certain games. When I purchased FF13 for 60 dollars I got a $20 ecard which I used to cover half the cost of SSF4. If more retailers did things like that instead of giving me some extra costumes and a cd buying a lot more games would be a lot easier. BestBuy, Target, and others need to follow suit.
mf add at the top page dont let me read… sux
Make a great game or a game people really enjoy and not a lot of people will care if it is $60.
Well, I think $60 is a fair price for all the top AAA games, and they deserve to be rewarded for their dedication to excellence.
But it's certainly not a good price when you're getting a lesser game that's either and/or…
way too short,
cut content in order to make more DLC $$$,
porting the 360, & gimping the PS3 copy,
lazy developers still make last gen graphics.
And the list goes on & on!
So these lesser games only deserve to be bought when the price either comes way way down, or buying used, or even waiting till it's tossed in the $5-$10 bargain bin.
This sounds like a load of bs to me. I don't want the good companies to start making half-assed games so that I can afford to buy more of them. I want one good game a month that is worth the money and time.
What's up with the ads covering text?? And how is BigDeal.com selling 120gb psp slims??
Hella expensive make it 10 bucks or lets say 7 and I guarantee u, u will sell more then a billion. take my word on that 😉
30 pounds would be easier to swallow. i dont like his idea of cutting games to £20 then DLCing the whole effing thing.
$60 seems fair to me for the big experiences. When I think a company has worked hard on a great product that I know will entertain I tend to reward them with that direct sale. When I know something has been half assed or ported poorly I go second hand.
I DO believe if games dropped 10-20 dollars they would probably make more money but I don't see it happening. You have no idea how many people I saw on the boards across the internets saying that that $40 price on 3DDotGameHeroes was what sold them on it.
The idea of a core game then DLC is just stupid, my 500gigs would be full pretty quickly and I wouldn't save any money in the deal. So Namco, take the lead, sell your next game at $50 and see if you make more than projected at $60. I dare ya.
Off Topic: Why is that Google ad floating in space and blocking my view of the comments?
I"m having the same problem with the floating ads..it's getting annoying, they're blocking text like mad. However, hit refresh that should solve it.
I got 3d Dot Heroes for $35 at Wal-Mart of all places. It was the last copy too so I'm glad people are buying the exclusives.
However, I didn't know whether to laugh or cringe because down the same shelf behind the glass sat Iron Man 2 at $54.
Games are expensive, no question about it. Top selling game like Call of Duty, God Of War, Gears of War, KZ, Mario etc etc, will sell with the $59.99 price tag no doubt about it and I can't see prices going down on top titles, ever. Top games will sell, that is proven. $60? try close to $70, don't forget the tax.
This is way off topic but i just herd that FF Verses is now goin to the 360. Anyone know whats goin on.
Wada discussed it as a possibility of sorts. I think that's all we know.
Ben, your logic doesn't completely factor in that it's gotten about 1757 times easier/cheaper to manufacture the hardware over the years too, and although there are jumps in the price for developers to create games when new consoles come out, they quickly go down. Once you make one game on a console, you often have a solid engine that you can expand on or in some cases just change minor parts of the game.
No, it hasn't gotten 1700-odd times cheaper to make the hardware, not unless you're running your games on a 1Mhz 6502 CPU with 4KB of RAM.
That's just non-sense.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, of that I am certain.
Actually this is kind of relative isn't it? I shop at Amazon and for every time I've dropped $60 (and sometimes $50), they've given me a $20 credit towards my next game.
There are times where you can literally get 3 or 4 games by doing the "rebate carousel" at Amazon. That's not even counting the serious price drops on games after only a couple months. I see no problem having someone pay $60 for a game to have it on day one.
I've been doing this for quite some time now. Love those future game credits.
I'm done picking up new games at the store though, even if that tiny experience is fun, the $5 taxes is too much.
Don't you have to pay tax online? Say for instance Amazon, don't they charge sales tax? I thought they did. I'm in Seattle, and Amazon is based in Seattle. I thought they charge whatever your local state sales tax is.
Nope, I never get charged tax.
Well suck me sideways. I'll be darned. If that is the case, I totally agree. Why pay tax if you don't have to.
Thats going to change soon if a certain group of people get their way.
VAT = Value Added Tax. Get to know it, and love it. Whether you want to or not.
That and the tools in my state are trying to make us accountable for all internet purchases we make. They want us to tali it all up then drop a check to the state at the end of the year.
I say F U!!!
What a jip. Amazon.com doesn't charge tax yet amazon.ca does? It also seems games take much longer to drop in price here, unless they're garbage that doesn't sell at all. I still see a ridiculous number of retailers here charge 45-55 bucks for GH's which means they've been out for at least a year or two. Just the other day I noticed Bioshock 2 is still 70 at my local walmart. I'm not saying Canada has it as bad as the UK or Australia but a bargain here is a real rarity.
@nerull,
The reason is that in the US states and cities can set their own sales tax levels, there is no federal sales tax. If you sell something to a customer in another state, they are not subject to your state's tax law and so the purchase is tax free, unless you have a fulfillment center or other operation in the state that the customer is in.
Jawknee, you pay sales tax on all other purchases, why not online ones? Sure it's nice not to have to, but why so angry? If no one pays their taxes what will the government buy bombs and guns with?
Because we are already over taxed. The guns and bombs account for only a portion of what we are paying in taxes. Besides national defense is what the federal government is supposed to spend our money on. Its the welfare state im sick of paying for.
Not only that but taxes kill industry. A VAT would stagnate our growth and well see unemployment rates stay high like Europe. We will also see in increase in the price we pay at the store for all goods and services under a VAT. People assume these companies will eat the cost but they won't. They'll start laying people off or raise their prices. As a business owner i would do what i had to to survive. If my state forces us to pay more taxes on Amazon sales or just internet sales in general, i will be buying less. Whos hurt? me and Amazon.
Taxes at some level are a must, i would argue we are way past that appropriate level at this point. More will just do more damage to our economy.
Last edited by Jawknee on 5/21/2010 11:57:59 AM
This always makes me think because a number of movies hit the billion dollar mark because it is just SO accessible. I think it starts with console sales, duh. So really where are the gamers at? Where are the 140 million ps2 people?
ALL 40 of my ps3 games were stolen, so a price drop on games could help me get the back. 60$ is very expensive if you really think about it, but everyone is working for money not thank you's.
I am sorry for your loss.
them*
Think this is a ploy to justify cutting a lot of content out of Quatum Theory
I bet they've already filled out the 9.5GB of storage on the DVD version of QT
Reminds me of what happened to FFXIII and cutting "a whole game's worth of content."
COULD be wrong, just throwing this out there
The Toaster 60 is really hurting video game's progression
i havent bought a new game since BC2, and before that it was burnout paradise
and its exactly what the dude said. i'm not made of money.
most people round these parts spend the same amount on games as i do, they buy madden and the new COD and thats all their library has. I have a large span of games that i like, so i rent. i can usually polish off a game in 5 days regardless.
I got BC2 new off Amazon for $40 bucks. Thats a fair price. Not $60.
Last new game(s) I got was Ninja Gaiden Sigma II and "Uncharted 2" used but it still cost a pretty penny even the other used games still 54.99..
If I didn't restart my Gamefly account back up I wouldn't be playing anything new right now(GTA IV episodes and RDR) a fair price would be 40 dollars and sports titles that come out annually should be 30 dollars.
I wonder how the escalating costs of game development will affect the eventual arrival of the next-generation of gaming consoles.
Apparently, the average development cost going from PSX to PS2 to PS3 multiplies by roughly 5x-7x that of the previous generation. It'd be hard for me to imagine God of War 4 (hypothetically on PS4) costing $200k+ and still manage to be profitable. Though, perhaps, greater processing, moving forward, will equate to increased pixel resolutions and filtering techniques that may not require much more R&D costs to optimize.
And who knows, if it is determined that all it takes to successfully launch a new hardware platform with resolution and detail augmentation, perhaps we may see "optimized on PS4 games" which are PS3 games at their core but contain programming pathways that enable higher quality visual settings. Enabling a smoother migration from one generation to the next.
Anyhow, I can only wonder.
I just got my PS3 and bought Darksiders for full retail, when I tried to resell less than a week later I was only able to find a buyer for $35.00!
Needless to say I will not buy a game at full retail, unless I sell one to help burden the pain of the initial cost. Like many others I will wait till someone wants to sell their copy on Craigslist for 20 to 30 dollars less. I travel for my job and go to other cities around me so it works in my favor. It would be a lot different without that option. Ebay you can score some deals there also. That's where I scored on a pr of Tritton 720's 5.1 gaming headphones for a $100.00 with free shipping, I lost the option of a 1 yr warranty but saved over $40.00, and they are in perfect condition!
God of War 3 I rented and beat, didn't enjoy all the side missions but didn't care to play just the core game, saved 50 bucks. Got Burnout and Uncharted together for 20, saved 20. A family of 6 I will never afford full retail. It pays to wait and shop around, I even did this for the PS2. We as a society are driven to have the latest and greatest the minute it is available, it usually doesn't payoff. The only two ways I see it justified? On-line multiplaying with friends and gaming as a career choice.
These are just personal opinions and don't belittle people who buy games at full retail, I did 4ever and regret that choice still today.
Games are expensive to a point, just not looking forward to the new HST tax that our good old retarded Goverment put in place for July.. I better see job creation from this new tax that they claim is required to help the employment industry.
Basically the way I think about when I purchase a game is
1 I preorder and pay installments so when it comes out I'm not paying 1 lump sum
2) I review it and watch it like a hawk during the preorder period incase I change my mind.
3) I don't buy collectors editions I really don't need that useless crap that comes with it
4) I don't buy strategy guides I go online to find it if need too.
basically I am paying the amount that I am due to the experience I am getting so I see why the games are so expensive but you really have to research to make sure that it's worth that amount.
Games here in Canada usually come around $70 when they first come out. Some are $60 but very few. I really don't know but one of my friends in Washington tells me that games in the US are cheaper than Canada and he tells me that you guys can get COD 4 and W@W for like $20 now. Here in Canada they still sell for about $40 above just because the retailers want to slash some cash from die hard fanboys that like Call of Duty. I remember going to futureshop around June of 2009 and cod 4 was 59.99 brand new and then 1 month later I returned and it was $69.99 that is crazy!!
But now it's around $40 now