Are Consumers The Reason Game Prices Are Rising?

C

creepindeth04

Moderator
As you may have noticed, the next generation has become more expensive. Many Xbox 360 titles sell for an MSRP of $59.99, ten bucks more than we used to pay. This, my friends, is not even limited to the console sector. Even the handhelds are getting more expensive. Most PSP titles now debut at $49.99 or $39.99 and DS titles are $34.99 to $39.99. This is not really because production costs are rising. That's just a drop in the bucket. The real reason prices are increasing is because third-party publishers like UbiSoft, Sega, 2KGames, EA, and Activision are exploiting the fact that consumers are willing to pay that much.
Click to expand...

Now first off this article is all opinion, and I dont agree with everything he said but I think it brings up something to think about. Are we the reason prices are so high because we're wiling to pay the price? Are games really worth $60? Discuss.

Source: revolution.advancedmn.com
 
It's just like when developers make games based off popular shows and movies and make them terrible because they know the consumers will buy them no matter what
 
Are games worth $60? Think about this. TES:4 Oblivion for Xbox 360 costed nearly 30 million dollars to make, and about 4 years of hard work. We want bigger and better but bigger and better costs more, and than people complain. So I guess in a sense it IS the consumers fault.
 
x2 said:
Are games worth $60? Think about this. TES:4 Oblivion for Xbox 360 costed nearly 30 million dollars to make, and about 4 years of hard work. We want bigger and better but bigger and better costs more, and than people complain. So I guess in a sense it IS the consumers fault.
Click to expand...

Yes but how many games are in the same caliber as TES? I agree that more expenses means higher prices but are all the games worth $60?
 
Well they kind of have to be. It just wouldn't be right to punish a company for their lack of funds. Bethseda, the makers of MW, made plenty of money off of it, hence why they can do a 30 million dollar game. But what about the little guy? Where does he fit in this equation? In this business it takes money to make money but the only way to make money is to sell games. So, if the little guys' games, who are not of the same caliber of MW, have to sell for less, how do they make any profit? And in turn how would they make the profit to allow them to make better games?
 
x2 said:
Well they kind of have to be. It just wouldn't be right to punish a company for their lack of funds. Bethseda, the makers of MW, made plenty of money off of it, hence why they can do a 30 million dollar game. But what about the little guy? Where does he fit in this equation? In this business it takes money to make money but the only way to make money is to sell games. So, if the little guys' games, who are not of the same caliber of MW, have to sell for less, how do they make any profit? And in turn how would they make the profit to allow them to make better games?
Click to expand...

Yes but what if the quality of the game isn't that great and people refuse to buy it even at the high price? I think the expense should justify the cost. If a game costs 30 million to make then I can see a charge of $60. But if you're an upandcomer then you should price low so that more people can afford your game and give your company more exposure.
 
I dunno why people are scared of $59.99

That's how much we paid for Genesis and SNES games back in our time. Especially N64 games!

Remember the price of Final Fantasy 3 on SNES? How about Earthbound set with the guide book??
 
I see your point and I can see your reasoning but it still doesn't leave much chance for the little guy. Even at $60 a pop Bethseda will probably not see a huge profit, can you imagine if a small company had to try to make a profit off a $20 game that most people will not buy? I know what you mean about exposure but we all know it doesn't work that way in this biz. I mean really, have those special OP's bargain bin games ever made a huge come up simply from exposure? Heck no, and their games were always $10. And I don't know a cost to expense pricing scheme would be good, because again, a little company will never be able to make money because their games would never sell for more than $20. They would just lose money and disappear like so many others. I think a fixed price point for the majority of games is really the fairest way to do things. That way everybody has a chance. The low production games can earn as much as high production games that sell more copies, since they don't need to sell as many copies to turn a profit.
 
Ghouls N Ghosts said:
I dunno why people are scared of $59.99

That's how much we paid for Genesis and SNES games back in our time. Especially N64 games!

Remember the price of Final Fantasy 3 on SNES? How about Earthbound set with the guide book??
Click to expand...

Because usually it costs less to manufacture CD and DVD games. It doesnt cost much to press them.

@X2: Im not talking about bargain bin type games. I also dont mean pricing them $20. I just mean maybe pricing them at $40 or even $35. I think the $60 price tag should be reserved for really big budget games.
 
It's tough for the up and coming companies to make a splash with their games. Face it. If a kid comes into a Game Stop and sees a game that's $25 that he's never heard of, and then looks o0ver and sees a $60 game that some dolt wrote a half-baked review on, he's going to that $60 game in a heart beat. It doesn't matter if the $25 game plays better, looks better and generally is better.

Yes. it is the consumer's fault. We are too quick to think that the price defines everything. If someone slaps a $10,000 price tag on some canvas that has paint splashed on it, it's instantly a piece of fine art. So in the end, if you want the big name games to become cheaper, then give the less expensive games a chance. The game developers will get the message.
 
If the lower price tag results in more sales it could work very well in the little guys favor. I get your logic now. I would still be hesitant about it though, as it could back fire and completely alienate lower production games.
 
x2 said:
If the lower price tag results in more sales it could work very well in the little guys favor. I get your logic now. I would still be hesitant about it though, as it could back fire and completely alienate lower production games.
Click to expand...

So can a high price. It all falls back on the quality of the game.
 
I see your point and I can see your reasoning but it still doesn't leave much chance for the little guy.
Click to expand...

That's capitalism for ya, get used to it. :lol

That also applies to the idea of "companies exploiting consumers because we let them." That really is the nature of capitalism. However, I do think it is somewhat justified (as much as a rise in price can be) just because there are longer development cycles and whatnot. The idea is that the $60 games are $10 better than $50. If you agree, then buy it, if not, then don't. Vote with your dollars.
 
Piracy also plays a factor. I mean these companies spend tons of money developing just one game, let alone many. If someone rips them off then it makes the rest of us have to pay through the nose because we're willing to buy things legally.
 
creepindeth said:
Because usually it costs less to manufacture CD and DVD games. It doesnt cost much to press them.

@X2: Im not talking about bargain bin type games. I also dont mean pricing them $20. I just mean maybe pricing them at $40 or even $35. I think  the $60 price tag should be reserved for really big budget games.
Click to expand...

exactly, but back then we didnt have DVD based games :lol Cart and if you had a CD based game, you were considered a big spenda ;) (3DO, Jag CD, Saturn, PSX, Phillips CD-i, Sega CD)

Ah memories :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top