WTH ...game prices.

[envymert]

Is it just me or is anyone else worried about games including direct download computer games costing 59.99?
1) Why are we paying as much as console players for a product?
2) Is this trend going to continue?

I will always be a PC gamer but this is kind of ridiculous.

 

[rpg_poser]

Don't even get me started...

 

[envymert]

Ok so I am not the only one ........I think I do pretty well with my salary. I spend hundreds on video cards / upgrades but yesterday when I bought Guild Wars 2, Diablo 3, Max Payne 3 and Mass Effect 3 and dropped $240 on all direct download games I almost dropped one of them. I think I may just wait to get games until Amazon or Steam have them on sale.

I think I may have to start thinking through buying decisions more .... I normally would buy games for PC first and then either 360 or PS3 to play with friends. That might have to stop

 

[casualcolors]

Is it just me or is anyone else worried about games including direct download computer games costing 59.99?
1) Why are we paying as much as console players for a product?
2) Is this trend going to continue?

I will always be a PC gamer but this is kind of ridiculous.

Games cost more to develop than they used to (a LOT more). Games also used to cost anywhere between 40-80 dollars 10 and 15 years ago, much as they do today. What has changed though is inflation and relatively speaking, games are cheaper than they used to be. The fact that PC games used to be cheaper than console games sometimes wasn't some right entitled to PC gamers. In general, AAA titles that are developed across several platforms will retain similar retail prices throughout, while PC-only releases continue the trend of being slightly less expensive.

The fact that big titles in 2012 are 250 times more expensive to develop and market than they were in 1995, combined with how quickly PC games go on sale (and for console players, the availability of used discs) leaves me feeling like there isn't any more inequity in the price of gaming than other luxuries. In many cases, the markup is far less absurd. Take a look at the cost of cosmetics vice their production cost if you want to see something that is actually outlandish.

 

[envymert]

Colors I agree with you on alot of points. Just stinks that we would normally get great new games for 39.99-49.99. But yeah with games like Diablo 3, ME3, Skyrim, Guild Wars 2 etc all take many many years to develope/create. Where as old games went from paper to release in a year with a much smaller production team.

 

[jay2tall]

I think it was only a matter of time when all new releases would be the same price across platforms. (PC, Xbox360, PS3). It is also a matter of time before they start locking games to peoples Xbox or PSN accounts as well so they can not resell them. This is inevitable, but may take a while to kick in completely. They have online pass, which is probably a first step.

I hear you on the new title cost. I remember PC games used to be 49.99 at launch when the console versions were 59.99. I now wait until the price drops unless I REALLY want the game at launch or soon after. I have found myself picking up campaign or story line based games off Steam for $9.99 and under. I also started noticing that PC games will start charging for extra DLC. Consoles are notorious for DLC's that cost points (money) from your Xbox account or money from your PSN account. We've always enjoyed everything being included in the next patch. I am not sure how long that will last either. Time will tell. However, I think PC gamers are more persistent than console gamers as they will just own up and pay for the content. PC gamers will boycott a game and post it on every forum they can find creating articles and then pressuring the developers to change their mind. So hopefully we continue to get free DLC stuff.

Anyway, sorry for venturing off on that topic. I hear you though. I have become very picky with buying anything at $60. Mass Effect 3 will have to wait until it comes with the DLC content free so I can have the Prothean character and mission at reasonable price. I figure that will take a year until it's $25 or less on Steam. Diablo 3 might be a game I pick up out of the game. Max Payne 3 will have to wait until I read reviews and it comes down as well. I'm in no rush to play any story line based game.

 

[rpg_poser]

I am sick of all these gyrations game production houses use to get another stinking dollar out me. Guess I am reformatting my win OS and going 100% open source linux. No more commercial games for me.

PSYCH!!!

What will really happen is that I (like most folks) will wait until the game I really really want is on sale and put up with the stupid crap because I have to.

 

[envymert]

Anyone play any of the indie titles from steam? I would like to try them but some of them look to easy and or quick to buy and beat.

 

[rpg_poser]

Bastion has gotten excellent reviews. Super meat boy is good, but hard. Check it's art style out first before buying it, some people don't like it. I know the artist and am used to his work, so it's no big deal to me.

 

[casualcolors]

Anyone play any of the indie titles from steam? I would like to try them but some of them look to easy and or quick to buy and beat.

Waves was a fun. Another game that isn't a steam title but that I do really enjoy is the twin-stick mech shooter Gatling Gears.

If you want something that could potentially keep you occupied for a very long time and really challenge you, try out the I Wanna Be The Guy/Boshy/etc games. On their hardest settings, they are ridiculous. Although not beautiful, they are the pinnacle of gimmick platforming.

 

[synthaside]

The origional reason why console games were more expensive than Pc games , was the high material cost of the the games console purchase was often subsidised by their higher price games .

"Like a razor company giving away or selling the razer for a loss "

King Gillette - of Gillette Razors discovered this principle -

An introductory package of one razor with four blades, the price was so low that Gillette actually lost money on the original sale, calculated correctly the customer's need for new blades would make business profitable.

So we can buy a PS3 - at release for a remarkable price consisdering the price of the technology involved ... the "Company" makes it back selling 60 dolar games to offset this ...

Eventually it becomes acceptable " thats just the price a triple A title "
Eventually they can get away with i " Adding the premium to PC games"
Eventually people vote with their feet " boycot or wait for the price to fall"
Or resort to crime

But sadly if you want it you pay up evenetually .. in the store or in court ;-)

 

[AntiZig]

Mass Effect 3 will have to wait until it comes with the DLC content free so I can have the Prothean character and mission at reasonable price. I figure that will take a year until it's $25 or less on Steam.

so far I haven't heard anything about ME3 being available on steam

 

[wasbot]

Games cost more to develop than they used to (a LOT more). Games also used to cost anywhere between 40-80 dollars 10 and 15 years ago, much as they do today. What has changed though is inflation and relatively speaking, games are cheaper than they used to be. The fact that PC games used to be cheaper than console games sometimes wasn't some right entitled to PC gamers. In general, AAA titles that are developed across several platforms will retain similar retail prices throughout, while PC-only releases continue the trend of being slightly less expensive.

The fact that big titles in 2012 are 250 times more expensive to develop and market than they were in 1995, combined with how quickly PC games go on sale (and for console players, the availability of used discs) leaves me feeling like there isn't any more inequity in the price of gaming than other luxuries. In many cases, the markup is far less absurd. Take a look at the cost of cosmetics vice their production cost if you want to see something that is actually outlandish.

I agree with the above.

Although, I recall when Valve were talking about introducing Steam. They claimed at one point that games in general would be cheaper, due to them being available to download directly, cutting out the costs of a publisher, packaging, distributor and the cut from the shop selling the game. Granted, this would upset a lot of the middlemen businesses, but I liked the sound of cheaper games.

What we have now in some ways, is a typical EA tactic of trying to milk their customers for all they can get. Look at BF3. £39.99 on release if you bought it from Origin as a download, plus £11.99 for the Karkand Expansion when it was released. I bought a hard copy with the Karkand expansion included from Amazon for £27.99. It's hard to see why a digital copy stored on a server can cost more than the production of a hard copy.

I realise there's more going on than just the numbers above and that the cost of digital and hard copies are offset against each other in ways. It's just hard for most people to get their head around the same product costing £52 to download directly when a hard copy can be bought for £28. It gives the impression that as usual, EA are taking the piss.

Steam has fallen foul of this as well in ways, although I don't think it's all purely their fault. MW3 again was more expensive to buy from Steam than a hard copy. This wasn't a Valve game though. In comparison, the Orange Box was a damn good deal for what you got, especially if you didn't have HL2 already. Valve aren't perfect by any stretch but I certainly prefer to buy something from them than EA.

Whatever the case, I believe a large portion of gamers will feel ripped off due to the above and I kind of feel the same at times.

 

[casualcolors]

I agree with the above.

Although, I recall when Valve were talking about introducing Steam. They claimed at one point that games in general would be cheaper, due to them being available to download directly, cutting out the costs of a publisher, packaging, distributor and the cut from the shop selling the game. Granted, this would upset a lot of the middlemen businesses, but I liked the sound of cheaper games.

What we have now in some ways, is a typical EA tactic of trying to milk their customers for all they can get. Look at BF3. £39.99 on release if you bought it from Origin as a download, plus £11.99 for the Karkand Expansion when it was released. I bought a hard copy with the Karkand expansion included from Amazon for £27.99. It's hard to see why a digital copy stored on a server can cost more than the production of a hard copy.

I realise there's more going on than just the numbers above and that the cost of digital and hard copies are offset against each other in ways. It's just hard for most people to get their head around the same product costing £52 to download directly when a hard copy can be bought for £28. It gives the impression that as usual, EA are taking the piss.

Steam has fallen foul of this as well in ways, although I don't think it's all purely their fault. MW3 again was more expensive to buy from Steam than a hard copy. This wasn't a Valve game though. In comparison, the Orange Box was a damn good deal for what you got, especially if you didn't have HL2 already. Valve aren't perfect by any stretch but I certainly prefer to buy something from them than EA.

Whatever the case, I believe a large portion of gamers will feel ripped off due to the above and I kind of feel the same at times.

When Steam launched, there weren't 20 games a year coming out with over 200 million invested in each title. The price of doing business has changed significantly just in recent years. Also, there was never a real public outcry or demonstration directed at Valve when Steam launched and essentially nothing changed in the game pricing market (sales aside) and so there is no incentive for them to cut whatever cost off of the retail. Valve being a publisher as well as a business partner with other publishers and developers, the last thing they want to do is narrow their profit margin with no cause other than moral obligation. That wouldn't be smart business =).

 

[xunicronx]

The last game I paid $59.99 was Gears of War 3 for Xbox360 when it launched about 6 months ago. The next game I will pay $59.99 for will be Resident Evil 6 when it comes out later this year. Other than that, I will either refuse to play other games, or I will go rent from Blockbuster video. I just think most games are kind of lame nowadays. I'm pretty sure I won't be buying the new Playstation 4, Xbox 720, or Wii U when they launch. First, they will have to show me the games (they have to good games and games that I would be interested in personally) and second I could use all of that money to upgrade my computer every now and then. Currently, I have a decent PC, Xbox 360, Playstation 3, and Wii. I have been pretty disappointed with this generations consoles. I mean each console did have a few really cool games, but I mean overall, this generation of consoles kinda sucked in my humble opinion.

 

[heids24]

Casualcolors is right. MUCH larger budgets required to compete in that AAA spotlight. What was acceptable to us gamers back in 2002 is no longer accpetable quality in 2012.

However, on the positive side, game prices come down significantly in relatively short amount of time if you can wait - especially in the digital download world.

Examples of recent titles at huge discounts over at Amazon right now:
Crysis 2 - $7.50
Shift 2 - $5.00
The Darkness II - $12.50
Crusader Kings II - $17.50
Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine - $9.99
L.A. Noire - $5
Saints Row 3 - $25.00
Red Faction: Armageddon - $5.00
Arma II: Combined Operations - $10.00

All of those games above will cost you less than $100 right now, and last you hundreds of hours of gameplay. That's extremely good value if you ask me.

 

[US_Ranger]

Games cost 59.99 because people pay 59.99 for them. Every time Modern Warfare is remade, everyone flocks to the store or online to buy it. A couple companies (EA being the main one) decided to test the price-point at 60 dollars to see if it would sell and it did. Now every other company is following because they know they'll make X amount of dollars more than they would have at 50 dollars.

Meanwhile, people like me will not, for any reason, buy a game for 60 dollars. This is especially true when most games are released unfinished and have DLC ready 2 months after release that completes the game. Screw that. I just wait 1-2 years for the game to be 50% off with DLC included. I don't want to support crappy products by paying full price.

 

[casualcolors]

The $60.00 pricepoint was tested, tried and true over 20 years ago. The fact that the price of games has barely moved when the price of a loaf of bread in 1990 was under a dollar, and now is almost 3, should be something to consider.

You're still being charged a theoretical premium, but that's usually the case when you're buying something that is 100% a luxury item. Fact still remains that games are cheaper today than they've ever been, and without even considering the constant sales and used game markets.

You can't say "EA being the main one" when games have cost literally the same dollar amount since before EA was even a big name in the publishing scene. It just shows that you have literally no idea what you're talking about, a lot like discounting 2 decades of inflation that never impacted the price of games.

 

[US_Ranger]

Another internet warrior telling me that I'm full of *** when not even taking everything into consideration in the first place. Of course you talk about inflation because that supports your case. Meanwhile, you ignore digital sales that don't need boxes, manuals, art, CD's, shipping costs and teams that take care of the logistics involved with all of it.

Nah, that doesn't support your argument so leave that out.

Also, let's ignore the OTHER part of history that had games constantly at 50 dollars.

In your words, it just shows that you literally have no idea what you're talking about. Arrogant prick.

 

[casualcolors]

Another internet warrior telling me that I'm full of *** when not even taking everything into consideration in the first place. Of course you talk about inflation because that supports your case. Meanwhile, you ignore digital sales that don't need boxes, manuals, art, CD's, shipping costs and teams that take care of the logistics involved with all of it.

Nah, that doesn't support your argument so leave that out.

Also, let's ignore the OTHER part of history that had games constantly at 50 dollars.

In your words, it just shows that you literally have no idea what you're talking about. Arrogant prick.

While digital sales may come in at the same cost as physical copies used to, the cost of developing and producing big-titles is also 250 times more expensive today than it was a decade and a half ago. Beyond that, if you look on Amazon you often find that physical copies are *cheaper* than their digitally distributed counterparts because the gaming market now prices based on convenience, since that is the message that the gamers sent them.

If you want to argue that the price of games was 50 dollars instead of 60 dollars, that's fine. I'll say that half the new titles that I see come out today release at 49.99. Neither one of those are anything more than observations.

All of these topics are rehashed from earlier in the thread that you didn't bother to read. You can call me whatever names you want, but you're overlooking a lot of reality to basically combine the complaints that luxury items cost money, and that businesses try to make money. That would be bad enough without manufacturing history to suit your argument.

 

[rpg_poser]

I know we are going over this over and over (see how redundant it is?), but I think the $59.99 game price point is artificial. Casual is my bro, but we disagree on this particular point. When the $59.99 new game price point was started, back in the SNES days (at least that's where I first saw it), not as many people played games and we were getting gouged with cartridge based game prices (FFIV new, had a $69.99 price tag). Looking back a bit further, I remember purchasing FD based games for my atari 600xl for $40.00.
As the years have gone by, the sheer number of people playing them has skyrocketed due to marketing, sports and FPS games. The media costs have gone down. I believe that development costs have gone up, but they are more than made up for by sheer volume of sales compared to the SNES days.
IMHO the $59.99 new game buy in pricepoint has been artificially set by the large game developers to eke a few more bucks for a luxury item. And, as I have previously stated, I don't even think about purchasing a game until it's price gets down to $40.00.

 

[casualcolors]

I know we are going over this over and over (see how redundant it is?), but I think the $59.99 game price point is artificial. Casual is my bro, but we disagree on this particular point. When the $59.99 new game price point was started, back in the SNES days (at least that's where I first saw it), not as many people played games and we were getting gouged with cartridge based game prices (FFIV new, had a $69.99 price tag). Looking back a bit further, I remember purchasing FD based games for my atari 600xl for $40.00.
As the years have gone by, the sheer number of people playing them has skyrocketed due to marketing, sports and FPS games. The media costs have gone down. I believe that development costs have gone up, but they are more than made up for by sheer volume of sales compared to the SNES days.
IMHO the $59.99 new game buy in pricepoint has been artificially set by the large game developers to eke a few more bucks for a luxury item. And, as I have previously stated, I don't even think about purchasing a game until it's price gets down to $40.00.

There is no way to deny that saying 60 dollars is the average cost today or yesteryear is painting in broad strokes. There are plenty of games that you can buy today for anywhere between 9.99 to 89.99, and there were games in the 90's that costed as little as 20 bucks and other games that broke the $100.00 price point shamelessly. I just think everyone is comfortable saying 60 dollars is a general price point. That's why I can't be arsed to argue over 50 vs 60 dollars.

Other than that I know we disagree in principle on the subject, but that's cool. Is all just for the sake of debate anyway.

Oh I forgot to add, you are absolutely right about 59.99 being an artificial price point. Game companies are trying to cut the widest profit margin possible without offending the consumers in the market. But that's the goal of business in general and I can't fault them for it. As much as 59.99 stings, with it being artificial in nature, the price of games could just as easily have risen along with everything else over the last decade and a half, leaving us with $100.00 digital downloads. I'm just fortunate that hasn't actually proven to be the case. But, since it's a video game and not a loaf of bread, I'm not sure it would be right to complaint if they were that expensive either.

 

[rpg_poser]

Debating the debate. Nice avatar, brother. Thought you were an FPS kinda guy?

 

[casualcolors]

Debating the debate. Nice avatar, brother. Thought you were an FPS kinda guy?

The only shooters I don't like are the third-person over the shoulder ones. Other than that, everything is fair game =)

 

[rpg_poser]

What about RE4?? Huh??