Does anybody think game prices are too high?

a long time ago...

back when pc gamer was fairly a decent mag, they broke down why pc games are priced so high. Chief among the reasons...piracy.

Weird how the consumer's would be punished for the selfish acts of others.

These days though, in the age of Ion Storms, ID's, and Rockstars; I can see how games cost so much to develop...as would movies like LOTR or even the rinkiest dinkiest garage calibre type games. People need to get paid to develop the story, the artwork, the artists who translate that art into something rendable on-screen...not to mention some licensing issues (if you used the quake/unreal/lithtech) graphic's engines to pump out your pretty pictures.

I think <a href="http://pc.ign.com/objects/014/014214.html#previews" target="_blank">IGN</a> did some interviews with Chris Taylor of Gas Powered games. As well as interviewing other members of the design team. There's a lot of people who made that particular game who had to go home (to their apartments/condos/homes) and eat/live. Their time isn't free.

Then, when the finished product is completed after months (or in most cases for the Triple-A type games...years). Their game has to be playtested for bugs, errors, weird stuff that would detract from the enjoyment of their product. They need to be paid too. Which leads in some cases parts of the game needing to be recompiled/programmed...and then being playtested again for quality assurance.

Then you add the marketing types who do their best (or worst) to sell this game to us, the consumer...that is, if we haven't downloaded a cracked version on some ftp server...

And then, distribution.

Games aren't cheap. I agree with you there that it's a pain in the ass trying to budget/prioritize which one to buy. But ultimately, it comes down to the fact that people need to be paid for their services in the end.

Games prices are a disgrace.

If you think about it, they are the most expensive form of legal entertainment. Let's face it, once you finish most games (20-30 hours), you won't touch them again for a long time- if ever.

And the piracy excuse or development costs is BS. Piracy wouldn't be so widespread if games cost 25-30 bucks. And most of the profits go to the company bank accounts. I don't see many developers making millions. And why should they in the first place?

Yeah, a big deal was made about him doing that. Took some balls.

I do hope they do make a better follow up to Dungeon Siege. It's a great mindless hack n slash game. A grander story would compliment the technological leap they made in graphics...right now, they're doing a pretty good job of helping out extending the life of the game via modifications/conversions. But so far, it doesn't compare to the community that's expanding on Neverwinter Nights.

I think some of you guys are forgetting that games are much cheaper now than they ever have been. Is $50 bucks on GTA:VC so bad when new Atari games sold for the same price if not a lot more?

I thought new Atari games were around $20.

I have a vivid memory of a kid walking up to the glass case of Atari games in a mall department store (this would have been circa 1983-4), and pointing out the GI Joe game (marked $19.99 or whatever). The lady pulls one out and puts it on the counter for him. Kid produces the $20 bill that he was given for his birthday. Lady rings it up... it's more than $20. Kid leaves in tears.

I am not making this up.

Maybe I'm wrong but I could have sworn that the big name cartridges sold for around $60 or $65. If I'm wrong just disregard my post and please refrain from spitting on me as you walk by.

$50 bucks is a steal compared to paying upwards around $80-100 dollars for the same game in Canada.

That's really disgraceful.

What would really help in this discussion would be an itemized breakdown of game development costs.

From the cost of renting office space for the workers, the computers/hardware needed to do the work, the electricity bills, the wages of all involved...etc.

Nothing is ever cheap...look at why some of EA's games are developed in Canada. It's cheaper to pay a Canadian than it is an American...silly canadians will work for a case of Labbats or Molson I tell ya (which would explain why NHL 2003 was so shitty).

Dave Davis wrote a rather good editorial on the topic of expense and concluded that comic books are the most expensive forms of entertainment (in terms of price/hours of entertainment). If the search engine didn't hate me, I'd provide a link.

Anyhoo, I don't think the price is too outrageous. Sure, I'd like it more if the standard price was $40 but $50 for the hours upon hours I get out of the game is not a bad deal to me.

Of course, I'm very choosy about which games I'll actually purchase. If I'm going to drop all that cash, I want to know it's a game I'll play for a long time.

Also, I remember paying $85 for the first Street Fighter II game for SNES. I think the prices are much better now.

I have no problem with game prices because you know what, compared to other forms of entertainment movies, sports, etc., it is the only form that has stayed the same price for more than 15-20 years. NES games back in the 80's were the same price that new PS2 X-box, and GC games are today. Compare that to $8 - $10 movie ticket prices that have gone up every year for the past decade. Also compare that to a trip to the old ballpark expect to pay almost three times as much as you would have only 15 years ago. Also with the new technologies out there, games are becoming more and more cinematic and costing alot more to produce, and yet still stay the same price. Unlike the movie industry that says since movies are costing more to produce we have to raise ticket prices. The most expensive game project was Shenmue which cost 70 million dollars to produce, so believe me $50 isn't alot to ask.

beat me to it. i was going to bring up the comics.

i remeber, back in the day, when zelda 2 came out for the nes. i remember seeing it at silo...(remember that crappy store?) for 60 bucks.

i understand why they are priced the way they are. i'm not dirt poor or anything, so i don't mind so much. and when i do get a game i like, especially the multiplayer games, i can put a ton of hours into them and really get my money's worth. halo has been worth every penny.

shit, i shouldn't say that... they're going to raise the price if too many people say what i said. maybe they should modify pricing on quality of the game... i just hate spending 50 clams for a piece of ass game. good thing eb and gamestop have the trial periods.

For all of the hours I've gotten out of games like Halo, Splinter Cell, SOCOM, RE, Vice City, SSX Tricky I think games are mostly reasonably priced.

In fact if I had to venture a guess I would say that with all of the play time I've gotten out of Halo my per hour cost probably breaks down to fifty cents or less.

Sure there are crap games that aren't worth a damn thing, but I take those back.

I used to be an avid golfer and I would drop $50-75 for a four hour round of golf, plus balls and range balls. Games are much cheaper.

Plus, does anyone remember when the 16-bit cartridges were like 70 bucks. Damn.

here ya go:

<a href="http://www.chud.com/news/aug02/aug26math.php3" target="_blank">http://www.chud.com/news/aug02/aug26math.php3</a>

and i can tell you this: i've been doing freelance work in the videogame industry for the past 5 years and have worked on 4 different games including the current one (all of which shall remain nameless due to non-disclosure agreements or pure shame), and it's obvious that many people (some more apparent than others, ahem, mastronikolas) don't really know much about the development process and how the industry operates. the game industry may generate more dough than the movie industry, but 90% of games that are released are UNPROFITABLE. if they even get released at all, of course. i could give you a detailed breakdown, but it's easier to just say that a startup company of 16 guys (a modest development team by today's standards) with very average salaries for the level of talent ($50-$70K) creating a game over a two-year period (the standard development time -- few are completed sooner, many take up to twice that long) will run between $4-$5 million. that includes office rent, hardware and software, and various expenses that seriously pile up when start adding them all together. this is all assuming you land a deal with a publisher, who is fronting that money based on the belief that they will make at least that much back. this means that your game must sell enough copies to offset the development cost (plus publishing cost), i.e., that aforementioned $4-$5 million, before the developer sees a dime -- and even then the developer is only getting a percentage of the profit. if your game sells at least a half million copies, you're well in the clear. this is RARE. the vast majority of developers disband after their first game (if it ever actually gets completed). some companies (id, Epic, Monolith, etc.) get around this by licensing technology/game engines, generating income from that so they can take their time with game development, but even that is a division of resources. if i had to estimate, i'd say about 10% of the people in the industry are making 90% of the money. and with the way it's growing and with so much cake being tossed around, i'd say it'll be about 3 years before things hit critical mass and there's a crash like the comic industry or dotcoms.

oh, and piracy IS a big deal, on a level with the music industry in relation to dollars per unit, and the attitude of "if games were cheaper i wouldn't have to get pirated copies" only contributes to it, no matter what you might wish to believe.

I'd say that the high prices are actually the reason for this differential. If games cost $50 then people are going to be extremely careful about what they spend that on. This means that only the biggest and best marketed games get brought.
If games were half the price then people would likely buy more games and the wealth would be spread around more.

And I read an article where it stated that development costs on the premium games/music/films are broadly similar.
I mean once you factor in a $20 million salary for your main star in a movie or a $60 million signing fee for Robbie Williams you have got to shift a lot of product.

However having said all that. As long as you buy a good game the $'s per hour works out very well compared to a DVD or CD. Its when you buy a bad game that they seem way too expensive.

How is Gamestop 10 dollars more expensive than 50?
I know of no games there (except SOCOM) that cost that much.

Gotcha.

For the most part, I really don't think games are too expensive, because if you buy a game you KNOW will give you a good bit of gameplay and replay value, it's not a waste of money.

If something is gonna occupy you for an extended amount of time, it's more than worth it.

Edited because I said "for the most part" twice in one sentence.

I totally believe you. Atari games were priced that amount in 1983-84. By that time, Warner Communications had single-handedly, catastrophically destroyed the home video game industry. The vivid memory you had was a liquidation sale.

The mismanagement was legendary. After Nolan Bushnell (Atari's founder) was bought out and left, Warner ran Atari to the ground. By 1983, the video-game industry went from $3 billion to $100 million in sales. The infamous "E.T." episode happened during this time period, and after getting the licensing agreement from Namco, Atari built more Pac-Man cartridges than there were game systems!

God, I love video game history. Fucking fascinating.

The mantra that all media companies (games, music, video) need chant regularly is:

"Make it AVAILABLE. Make it AFFORDABLE."

Other than "The Sims" and a couple of it's expansion packs as a gift for someone, I haven't bought a new game in years. I'll borrow it from a friend when they grow tired of it or wait a year for the bargain shelf. Bought "Alice" and "Undying" that way for $10 each. My kid brothers are no longer interested in "Medal of Honor: Allied Assault", I'll get it from them soon. I bought a used Dreamcast for $40 last year and have been totally happy with the used games that are available cheap.

The game distributors could make more money by increasing the number of titles sold at a lower price. IMHO, their pricing structure has increased piracy and the cost of production by investing in new piracy prevention technology. Make it available. Make it affordable. Equal or greater profits can be made this way. It's the beauty of capitalism.

what people are failing to grasp is that it's incredibly easy to just say "games should be cheaper". so let's say you cut the price in half. however, the cost of producing one remains the same (and continues to rise), which means that a developer must now make a quality game with the resources given but sell TWICE as many copies to be profitable.

it's hard enough to have a "hit", and this would just make it all the more difficult. see above re: impending crash.

well I do think that pricing for specific games is ludicris.

I was at Target the other day and they had GTO Vice City for $40. They had GTO3 for $50.

what the?

Rentals. Used games. Trade-ins/exchanges.

At least there's ways around the price of games these days.

I don't really have much beef with game prices, considering that in the past I've paid more for one game than many people earn in a week's wages. The cost of most games is justified by the amount of playing hours I get from them.

Example: I might spend 50 hours+ on a $50 Resident Evil game (I take my time, see all there is to see, go back to old save points and try out different things to allow for different game paths, etcetc). That amounts to $1 or less per RE gaming hour, which I think is reasonable.

Look at how the home movie market took off when they hit the 20dollar price point..

how many of you would have 100+ DVD collections if movies still costed 50 to 100 bucks a pop?

how many MORE games would you buy if they were all 20 to 25bucks a pop?

I'd impulse buy more, since I detest rentals.

The biggest obsticle I see these days is oversaturation of the market, its too hard to get your product noticed with out A} A well known character/license (i.e. Madden or Zelda) or B} a HUGE marketing budget

The sad part of the industry is for every Vice City there is 50 games that don't sell 100k.. Good games too, some of our most beloved games don't see crap, and leave there designers jobless..

but on a side note, part of the reason old NES and N64 games costed so much was the cartridge themselves were expensive to producte, whereas the CD's of today cost mere pennies to make (okay quite a few pennies, but still pennies)

I still think right now the best price point would be $30.. not too much to be a huge risk, and enough that they still make money.

Hey, you want Ray Liotta, you gotta pay the big bucks...

You want cheap games, bite the bullet and wait a year before you buy them.

these are three things that actually contribute to the high price of games rather than assuage it. anything that prevents original copies from moving means that the cost per unit must remain where it is.

Consider that with DVD's though the studios make back their budget with the theatrical release and most times DVD's are gravy. Games have to make all of their money back on just that, the games.

In my honest opinion, it relly depends. If you're looking at a game as huge as GTA3 or GTA:VC, I'd say a $50 price tag is well worth it. It all depends on the replay value. When you can really see the big production values in the game, then sure, $50 is reasonable.

You guys are lucky. yes, PC Games are often around 40-50 bucks over here, but video games are more expensive: GC games sell for about 60 dollars, PS2 for 67 dollars, and XBOX for 70 dollars. my number one pet peeve at Microsoft actually (and Sony).