$100 Console games to be the norm?

[iChris]

I realize this article is a week old but I just read it today and thought it was interesting discussion fodder.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10301854-17.html

Would you be willing to drop a $100 on your garden variety console game? I'm not talking games with regular content updates or WoW, I can get making a larger investment for a gift that keeps on giving. I'm talking regular old console games.

My answer is hell no. I take issue with $60 and am a shameless gamefly advocate. Even more so if the cost of 3 games ends up amounting to what I'd pay for a whole year of gamefly. Actually, it would end up being about $25 less. If this is where things are heading the rental market is going to go through the roof.

If the cost of a couple of games amounts to what you'd end up paying for a console something has gone horribly wrong.

Thoughts?

[Syl]

Console games are actually cheaper now than they used to be, much moreso when you take into account inflation.

I don't see this as being a big stretch, it WILL happen - just a matter of when.

[IveGotThatWiperFluid]

I think it depends on what you're getting for that extra $40. It'll take a long time for inflation on its own to drive prices that high. Gaming, for me at least, is classified as disposable income fodder. I love video games but not enough to sacrifice real life things for it, so if games are priced too high for their value I'll just find something better to spend my entertainment dollars on.

Consider this: World at War sold for $60 and had 3 map packs released at $10 each, effectively making the price $90 for everything the game has to offer. I considered $60 at the time a worthwhile investment (and it was) and I've bought each map pack because I felt they too were worth it (they were- zombies!). If last November they released the game for $90 and it included the additional 9 maps and 3 zombie levels on top of the default stuff... I'm not sure.

$90 is a lot for a single game, effectively a game and a half, but it's really hard to show that a $90 game is worth it in advance. With DLC, and yeah sometimes I have buyer's remorse, at least I know if my $60 game is worth investing more into. And spacing those extra $10 outlays over a few months makes it really nothing at all compared to dropping $90 up front.

And while this is a novel, I'll just say that if prices even move up to $70 or $80 as the regular price they sure as hell better improve. I know graphics aren't going much further and 1080p will be the max for a long long time to come. I'd be really hesitant to drop $80 on just a game that had as many bugs and networking issues as some this generation.

[drakkarim]

they're more than welcome to it, i'm sure Gamestop is hoping they will. it'll do nothing more than drive more people to buy used.

this whole argument about games costing 10 times more now to put out is a bunch of marketing bs.

the cost problem is theirs because they waste so much money on retarded marketing campaigns that they didn't before, as well as stupid sponsorships, and the ever increasing C level staff that they just absolutely need to oversee everything.

also, last i checked, the gaming audience is significantly bigger than it was 10, 20, 30 years ago, so its not like there's the same 100 gamers out there since the 1960's when it all began. market has been growing every year. so its not like costs went up but potential sources of income haven't.

granted, maybe they'd change their development/publishing strategy to something other than shotgun (shoot a ton of pellets and see if anything hits)...

I don't hear about Bethsoft/Bioware having any financial issues, why is that? because they take the time to make good games that people care about, not just shit out a bunch of titles and see if there's enough crap bought to raise the stock price a nickel for the shareholders.

maybe if the C level can't control costs worth a shit, they should can the C level and find some competent ones.

[iChris]

I think it depends on what you're getting for that extra $40. It'll take a long time for inflation on its own to drive prices that high. Gaming, for me at least, is classified as disposable income fodder. I love video games but not enough to sacrifice real life things for it, so if games are priced too high for their value I'll just find something better to spend my entertainment dollars on.

Consider this: World at War sold for $60 and had 3 map packs released at $10 each, effectively making the price $90 for everything the game has to offer. I considered $60 at the time a worthwhile investment (and it was) and I've bought each map pack because I felt they too were worth it (they were- zombies!). If last November they released the game for $90 and it included the additional 9 maps and 3 zombie levels on top of the default stuff... I'm not sure.

$90 is a lot for a single game, effectively a game and a half, but it's really hard to show that a $90 game is worth it in advance. With DLC, and yeah sometimes I have buyer's remorse, at least I know if my $60 game is worth investing more into. And spacing those extra $10 outlays over a few months makes it really nothing at all compared to dropping $90 up front.

And while this is a novel, I'll just say that if prices even move up to $70 or $80 as the regular price they sure as hell better improve. I know graphics aren't going much further and 1080p will be the max for a long long time to come. I'd be really hesitant to drop $80 on just a game that had as many bugs and networking issues as some this generation.

Well yes, absolutely it depends on what you're getting in return on your investment and I would agree with you that investing over time on a game that provides ongoing content updates is, in many cases, worth it. However, like you say, it's hard to know out of the gate if that's going to be the case which is why I think renting is going to grow considerably if prices spike.

I would assume it's a pretty standard procedure now. I've been on the gamefly train for as long as I can remember and have managed to dodge more $60 bullets than I can count as a result. If those bullets rise to $100 I imagine a lot more people are going to go this route too.

On the other side of the coin, I've also been exposed first hand to a lot of things I probably never would have been otherwise and, in some cases, ended up buying as a result of renting and playing first. The added bonus in this scenario is that my purchases are significantly lower than they would be if I paid retail.

In the end yes, it all boils down to how and where you spend your disposable income. I just wish developers would get it through their skulls that lowering price points can increase revenue just as much if not more than rising them.

[TeeCakes]

Never thought I be thankful for used stores like GameStop to keep publishers from losing their damn minds. But as it stands, nobody's gonna be successful at charging $100 for a new game when GS peddles the used version for half the price.

And god help them if they try to sell digital downloads at that price, sans all the goodies of the physical game (not to mention all the limitations/restrictions to deal with when downloading games.)

[JazGalaxy]

As someone mentioned earlier, you always have to add drop in the comment, when these discussions arise, that there is president for that price point when it comes to games. SNES Games reached prices of $80 (Mortal Kombat Trillogy) and N64 games were routinely sold from 75-90 dollars.

The drop in price to 50 dollars is a large and oftentimes uncredited reason for the PSX's success. N64 clearly had the more powerful console with games like Star Fox or Mario 64, but people were just fine with having a POWERFUL ENOUGH console and foregoing the "top of the line".

I don't think we'll see 100 games because Nintendo learned that lesson and won't go there again, and consumers will follow the value so long as the console is POWERFUL ENOUGH. (which arguably the Wii as much as I love it, is not)

[brutalus7]

Games with huge amounts of content are fine at $100. Oblivion or Fallout 3 or any of those giant RPGs with 50+ hours of content should cost more than a 8-10 hour action game. The grey areas start coming in when you try to evaluate multiplayer. A game like Halo 3 or Modern Warfare could be worth $100, but would the same length FPS with the same amount of multiplayer content (maps, game types, etc) be worth it if it isn't popular for as long?

I hope they don't try to have a set standard anymore. You're seeing it now that devs are comfortable releasing a game at $50 or $40 instead of $60, so if the AAA price is $100, maybe more developers will admit to themselves a little easier when their game isn't worthy of that price and put out a game for $40-70 instead. A bigger price margin would help sales for those titles quite a bit more. If they keep the "greatest hits" games around $30, it won't be so bad either. I would hate to see a 3 year old game listed as 'greatest hits' and sell for $60 though. That would upset me a lot.

[Dag-Sabot]

They'll just start charging a monthly fee for multiplayer. So in conclusion: $100 games plus subscription multiplayer equals me going back to drinking and partying, because its cheaper.

[lost]

Yeah...GameFly or equivalent service. I've had about 5 games from my rental company this month (Damnation, Conduit, Hawx, Bolt and Velvet Assassin) for £15 which is around $26 right now. Damnation was crap, I sent it back, no money lost. It's just the sensible way to game.

Honestly, they can jack up the prices all they like. You'll just see attach rates go down, PC gaming become more popular to the masses and XBLA/PSN/WiiWare do better than they ever had. Some of the stuff Activision is putting out like Quatum of Solace has literally 3 hours of content.

I think the extra cost all suggests poor management and gamers being forced to pay protection money in a crappy financial climate/crappy sales year.

[donkeydrop]

Not gonna happen. Publishers can cry all they want, but their "huge" budget game cost peanuts next to movie production costs. "The Passion of Christ" was a "cheap" movie at only $30 million, and you could see it in movie theatres for $8 and own the DVD for $20, and it made a crap-load of money. "Titanic" cost $200 million to make and you could see it in movie theatres for that very same $8 and own the DVD for $20, and guess what, it also made a crap-load of money.

So all those whiny-ass publishers complaining about their $10 million budget need to keep a few things in mind:

- the price you sell at has nothing to do with cost; you are competing with other forms of entertainment and you have to be competitive. You're already charging a lot more than a movie or book so you don't have room for increases.

- If you think you are selling your game for $60 right now you are in a dream-world. Game prices drop fast, and you probably average $40 over the life of the game. And you are giving 2/3 of the market to resellers, so if you factor that in you are probably lucky to get $15 for everyone who plays your game. Maybe you should consider decreasing prices to capture more of the market and increase your sales.

- If you make a great game that people want to buy then it doesnt matter how much the game cost, you will make a fortune. If your game sucks then you'll lose money whatever price you charge.

[iChris]

Yeah...GameFly or equivalent service. I've had about 5 games from my rental company this month (Damnation, Conduit, Hawx, Bolt and Velvet Assassin) for £15 which is around $26 right now. Damnation was crap, I sent it back, no money lost. It's just the sensible way to game.

That's what I'm saying. Pays for itself essentially.

[Isamura]

Let the invisible hand determine the price point.

[lost]

That's what I'm saying. Pays for itself essentially.

I don't know if the American companies (or any other nationality for that matter) do it as well but my guys keep track of a theoretical amount of savings I've made based on an average price for the game. £15 in and I'm up past £150, this includes their free trial.

[Johan]

To anyone with impulse control, it matters not a bit where games start in pricing; it matters where they end in pricing, when you buy them.

99% (almost all) of games will drop in price over time. I don't care what publishers price their games at. I won't buy until they're <$20. Period.

[Emabulator]

To anyone with impulse control, it matters not a bit where games start in pricing; it matters where they end in pricing, when you buy them.

99% (almost all) of games will drop in price over time. I don't care what publishers price their games at. I won't buy until they're <$20. Period.That's one thing I love about PC gaming. It does not take long for most games to drop down to $20.

[Johan]

That's one thing I love about PC gaming. It does not take long for most games to drop down to $20.

Console gaming isn't fundamentally any different. Games almost always crater in price within a year. Often less.

Some games require more patience. I waited for an Oblivion:Game of the Year Edition for a good long while, but I got it for $20 AND by the time I bought it, the mods on PC were available by the buckets, so playing the game was a richer experience with the expansions (included on the disk for free) and mods (dozens of them online) all there, ready for me.

I'm doing the same thing for Fallout 3. The GotYE comes out in October. By next spring, or thereabouts, it will be $20 and I'll buy it. :)

The initial sale price doesn't matter if you're willing to wait.

[Second Century]

I read the CNET editorial and its cited source, MCV.

Chris Deering (CNET has misspelled his name, btw) says that development costs are increasing. Now with the existing business model, higher costs are offset by raising the product's RRP. But he notes that there may be serious price elasticity issues: expensive games may turnoff consumers.

"In order to price these games at a level where they would support an industry [as strongly as] they did ten years ago, they’d have to be sold at £70. But people just don’t have that kind of money, there’s a psychological glass ceiling.

"Consumers won’t spend more, but to write the game, publishers are having to spend more than ever before. That’s the key problem." - MCV

CNET sensationalizes Mr. Deering's statement, spinning it into an almost nightmarish fate for the videogames industry. :eek:

[Jellopy]

It's like Fallout 3. I paid $80 for the game, and have paid about $10 for each instance of DLC.

I do not regret it :)

[Exodus]

isn't already practically that much in australia? That's why I could never move there. I love the women, just not the price of games. Games are obviously more important.

[EL CABONG]

I think NEO GEO games were like $250 when that system was out. Which in todays dollars would be more like 300 or so.

Some games sure others no. If I got the hours out of a game I got with say a fallout or a kotor I drop a 100 bones on them. On a new IP not likely. If you count all the dlc I paid that much for Fallout 3. My disk of Chroume Hounds died on me so I ran out and bought another one. So I spent 120 dollars on Ch.
I own Steel Battlion that cost a pretty penny.

[Dag-Sabot]

I love steel battalion now that my 360 is dead im thinking of firing that up again. It was truly innovative.