PS3 News: Namco: Games Are "Too Expensive For The Audience" - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

Namco: Games Are "Too Expensive For The Audience"

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.

5/20/2010 12:24:14 PM Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (110 posts)

sawao_yamanaka
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 12:43:39 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 3:52:52 PM

Which turtle?

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

big6
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 12:44:53 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 8 down Disagree with this comment

ColTater
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 12:47:40 PM

I like that way of thinkgin.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

bridgera
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 2:41:29 PM

I totally hate that way of thinking....

.... one reason of which, I can't sell/trade my DLC.

Agree with this comment 11 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

chedison
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 4:53:19 PM

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).

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

hellish_devil
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 5:19:59 PM

Or you can wait for a price drop

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

H8WL3R
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 5:46:00 PM

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?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ColTater
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 12:46:46 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mr Bitey
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 1:20:05 PM

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

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Darwin1967
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 12:47:44 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ColTater
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 12:57:34 PM

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.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

piratedrunk
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 12:50:05 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 12:53:55 PM
Reply

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

Agree with this comment 18 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

Silent_J
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 12:59:16 PM

agreed .

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Scarecrow
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 1:58:21 PM

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

Agree with this comment 10 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Phoelix
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 2:11:42 PM

"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).

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bridgera
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 2:45:18 PM

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

shadowscorpio
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 3:15:24 PM

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 4:05:01 PM

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*

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Vitron
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 6:10:58 PM

Well, except GTA & RDR they're both worth 60$


Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

StangMan80
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 6:29:09 PM

Even the best games of the year are not worth 60 bucks.


Last edited by StangMan80 on 5/20/2010 6:31:32 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Hezzron
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 12:53:59 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 13 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

MyWorstNightmar
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 1:09:30 PM

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.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 2:10:18 PM

... Uh... ok... carry the one... uh...

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 3:57:25 PM

Once you cut the apple it starts to get brown too.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

StangMan80
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 6:11:29 PM

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 1:00:26 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 1:53:28 PM

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?

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Darwin1967
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 4:30:33 PM

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

StangMan80
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 6:36:17 PM

Oops I replyed on Hezzron and wanted to reply on Underdog.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

AcHiLLiA
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 1:15:48 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 3:58:33 PM

Since it's hard to scratch a blu ray I still have yet to see a scratch on any used game I bought.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 1:30:53 PM
Reply

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?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

fluffer nutter
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 1:48:31 PM

The username with the most points at the end of 2014 will get the infamous blue PS3.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Rinoa
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 1:32:53 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

A2K78
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 1:36:28 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

JackC8
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 1:44:18 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ColTater
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 1:52:58 PM

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.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 1:51:55 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

fluffer nutter
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 1:53:46 PM

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.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Condemnedsoul23
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 2:42:39 PM

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.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

fluffer nutter
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 4:16:54 PM

They're charging for the content, not the media. At least, that's what they'll say.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

fluffer nutter
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 1:52:27 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Scarecrow
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 1:59:11 PM
Reply

Wasn't a problem in the ps2 generation

I blame Microsoft
They've ruined the image of multiplat games*

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 4:02:47 PM

Both by being the lowest common denominator and then presenting them as exclusives.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 2:15:07 PM
Reply

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

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 2:39:44 PM

Er...you're forgetting the cost it takes to make a game now compared to then.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 5:39:02 PM

It costs more now, but they sell a lot more copies. I was trying to say that it balances itself out.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

MyWorstNightmar
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 9:28:02 PM

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. =)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

frostface
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 2:19:25 PM
Reply

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

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 2:28:52 PM

Rockstar apparently spent $100 million on Red Dead Redemption, so apparently movies do not cost that much more to make than games...

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 4:03:47 PM

I bet it wasn't $100M.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Miggy
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 2:24:23 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 2:24:43 PM
Reply

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 can’t 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?

Agree with this comment 6 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

godsman
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 2:26:31 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 2:39:06 PM

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.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 2:54:53 PM

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.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

chedison
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 4:59:39 PM

I agree with Ben here. The parents really were the consumers. My mom bought all my games growing up lol.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

big6
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 2:27:44 PM
Reply

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!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Condemnedsoul23
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 2:31:51 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

goodgamer
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 2:39:50 PM
Reply

mf add at the top page dont let me read... sux

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

vicious54
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 2:51:46 PM
Reply

Make a great game or a game people really enjoy and not a lot of people will care if it is $60.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 2:52:50 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

NeoHumpty
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 3:07:13 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

NeoHumpty
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 3:09:09 PM

What's up with the ads covering text?? And how is BigDeal.com selling 120gb psp slims??

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

TEG3SH
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 3:48:08 PM
Reply

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 ;)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Zorigo
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 3:58:36 PM
Reply

30 pounds would be easier to swallow. i dont like his idea of cutting games to £20 then DLCing the whole effing thing.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 4:12:22 PM
Reply

$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?

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Darwin1967
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 4:31:41 PM

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

mexgeo86
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 4:36:38 PM

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Deleted User
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 4:58:58 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

natho86
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 5:03:05 PM
Reply

This is way off topic but i just herd that FF Verses is now goin to the 360. Anyone know whats goin on.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 5:14:02 PM

Wada discussed it as a possibility of sorts. I think that's all we know.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

baseballdude_ [Administrator]
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 5:33:30 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 10:11:33 PM

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 5:46:14 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

fluffer nutter
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 11:57:01 PM

I've been doing this for quite some time now. Love those future game credits.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 5:52:27 PM
Reply

I'm done picking up new games at the store though, even if that tiny experience is fun, the $5 taxes is too much.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

MyWorstNightmar
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 8:54:56 PM

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.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 9:13:18 PM

Nope, I never get charged tax.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

MyWorstNightmar
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 9:20:18 PM

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 9:52:01 PM

Thats going to change soon if a certain group of people get their way.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

MyWorstNightmar
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 9:57:11 PM

VAT = Value Added Tax. Get to know it, and love it. Whether you want to or not.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 10:08:29 PM

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!!!

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Nerull
Friday, May 21, 2010 @ 12:22:52 AM

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Friday, May 21, 2010 @ 3:08:16 AM

@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?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Friday, May 21, 2010 @ 11:41:36 AM

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

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Wage SLAVES
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 6:31:43 PM
Reply

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?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

gangan19
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 7:31:17 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

MyWorstNightmar
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 8:58:41 PM

I am sorry for your loss.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

gangan19
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 7:32:01 PM
Reply

them*

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Scarecrow
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 7:44:03 PM
Reply

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

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

LightShow
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 9:04:27 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 9:52:55 PM

I got BC2 new off Amazon for $40 bucks. Thats a fair price. Not $60.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

JDC80
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 10:33:28 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 11:07:37 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BaseMan
Thursday, May 20, 2010 @ 11:45:03 PM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Robochic
Friday, May 21, 2010 @ 1:05:08 AM
Reply

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

sha4dowknight05
Friday, May 21, 2010 @ 6:12:29 AM
Reply

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

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Thursday, May 27, 2010 @ 6:33:36 PM

FWIW the $70 version probably included the $10 map pack (GOTY edition). Nonetheless, the prices for COD4 and WAW are still absurd.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Friday, May 21, 2010 @ 9:26:46 AM
Reply

depends on what market your talking about.
in the US games cost 60 bucks, i think that is more than fair especially for some of the games were getting now 60 is a steal!

but here in AU were getting fu*king ripped off!!!
since when is 60 USD 120 AUD???????????????????????
have a look in the new AU gameinformer mag they did a comparison table and no country in the world besides SA pays more for games than us.

why are we paying 120 bucks for games these days thats fu*king pathetic!!!
180 more bucks and i can buy myself a new 360!!!!!
game guides are a fu*king rip off too!
i bought the alan wake guide today, and while its a great guide, heaps of good stuff its no where near worth 50 bucks!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

fluffer nutter
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 12:00:14 AM

Don't buy game guides and figure the game out on your own. Money saved.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 8:06:00 AM

i dont buy game guides to help me get through the game that would be stupid since theres heaps of sites that do that for free.
i buy game guides on some games im really interested in because it gives you a indepth look into the storyline and other things.
like assassins creed 2 guide, it explained what all the symbols above desmonds bed at the end of AC2 meant, without the guide you would of not known all of them just a few main ones.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Sheps
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 11:09:13 AM

I'd be interested to know where the extreme mark-up on game prices in Australia comes from. Due to the weak pound at the moment, I can buy games online for about half of the price that I'd be paying retail over here.

As it stands at the moment, games cost upwards AU$120 which is about US$100. I'm pretty sure that no one in the states would be happy to pay that.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 8:02:48 AM

its because of the way imports are set up, all our games well everything that comes into this country goes straight to Melbourne.
thats our only docking station, so they have to send the games from Melbourne to all the other states, where most countries have several docks so that means much less shipping requirements.
someone needs to get paid to distribute the games from the one dock to all of the countries game stores.

that said, prices are still way too high.
funny thing is if you buy games from HBHIFI all the new releases they have for under 90 bucks, thats why if theres a game i want to keep ill buy it from them, they are always at least 20 bucks if not more cheaper than EB or game.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

DeejayDeez
Friday, May 21, 2010 @ 11:17:29 AM
Reply

I personally like to compare video games to other types of hobbies, such as reading a book. I can go buy the new bestseller book for $10-$30 the day it comes out and spend at least 8-10 hours reading it. I can do the same with a PS3 game, yet it cost twice as much for the same amount of my time. I feel there is a simple solution here…an example would be the new Red Dead Redemption (30 hour game) that costs $60. That is a justified price based upon the length of game play. So from there you plug in the formula. 60 game / 30 hour gameplay = $2 per hour of gameplay. Therefore is you produce a title that only offers 10 hours of gameplay you would be obligated to sell that title for a excellent price of $20. So if there was a regulated per hour rate for which they could charge you then things would start to be more fair to the consumer. It obviously can't cost as much to produce a 10 hour game as it would a 30 hour game, yet they feel that all games are equal from a money standpoint, which is all a load of crap. Whatever happened to the whole you get what you pay for? The video game industry has throw that business model right out the window. Anyways we can take them down collectively. If everyone in the world rents instead of buying games, we could single handedly bring the industry to their knees!!!

Last edited by DeejayDeez on 5/21/2010 11:21:53 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Crabba
Friday, May 21, 2010 @ 7:35:45 PM
Reply

That's messed up logic. The typical movie blockbuster costs $100M to $200M to make. Avatar had a budget of approx $237M. So with this kind of logic, the Avatar blu-ray movie should cost like $500 then right?

There's no reason why cheaper games would have to result in less quality, shorter or lower budget games, since if they were cheaper they could (and probably would) sell a lot more copies instead. Especially when there like now are a lot of new AAA games out there, people aren't magically going to spend $500 at once on all the new cool games out there.

Considering that the physical costs of a game is minimal (which is why WalMart can sell an old DVD for $5 and still make a profit) by lowering new game prices to $30 they would basically turn the same profit by selling twice as many copies, which doesn't sound very unlikely. Not to mention that lower prices on games would probably be one of the best ways to drastically reduce the reason for people to buy games used

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

CharlesD
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 11:53:01 PM
Reply

How many millions of copies of RDR sold on the release date? On top of which, your paying for an interactive experience which lasts much longer. Movies are almost $10 a ticket and they're only 2-3hrs. Compare that to Heavy Rain... I think it's worth the extra cash.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Thursday, May 27, 2010 @ 6:36:14 PM

Just because movie tickets are ridiculously over-priced doesn't mean games should be as well.

Seriously, who goes to the movies anymore?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

What do you think about The Last Of Us: Remastered?
Fantastic! Can't wait to get it!
Good, not sure if I'll buy immediately.
Eh, not bad, but I don't care.
It's just a stupid money grab.

Previous Poll Results