On The Mysteries Of PC Computer Game Pricing 77
Thanks to The Adrenaline Vault for its editorial discussing the recent, seemingly strange retail pricing of PC videogames. The author explains that he has "reviewed a series of recent PC titles with an initial retail price of either $19.99 or, at most, $29.99... This is occurring even as console versions of the same games are selling for around $49.99." He concludes: "From a consumer standpoint, this new pricing pattern is heaven. You can buy more hours of quality virtual interactive entertainment for a lower fee than ever before... The one downside is the ability to get titles released more than six months ago, as small profit margins have led to diminishing shelf space in ever-contracting retail stores." But is there indeed a danger that "smaller [PC-developing] companies often can't handle the loss of revenues from lowered prices, so too dramatic a drop might jeopardize their existence"?
Where can I find these prices? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Where can I find these prices? (Score:3, Informative)
Also, my brother picked up Battlefield Vietnam same day for $35. It also came out that day. The next week, it went down to $30 [bestbuy.com]
Re:Where can I find these prices? (Score:3, Informative)
And if you're
Re:Where can I find these prices? (Score:2)
Re:Where can I find these prices? (Score:1)
Admittedly, these were all sale prices and the price went back to normal within a week or two.
yup (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:yup (Score:3, Insightful)
That alone would not be so bad except for the fact that many of the multiplatform games are developed for a specific console first and then ported to PC. The results are not always pretty ev
Re:yup (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:yup (Score:4, Funny)
I probably end up spending an extra $100-$200 per month on console gaming.
That money is spent on things like chips, drinks, BBQ, veggies, beer, etc that gets eaten when my friends and their wives/girlfriends come over to play console games. Also I spend extra time and money cleaning up the house before they come over.
When I was a PC gamer, sitting alone in a dark room with headphones on, it was much cheaper!
Simpson's Hit & Run (Score:2)
Even though I have a GameCube, I would have wanted the PC version anyways, as it has much better resolution. The cheaper price was an extra bonus.
I wonder why it's priced cheaper than the console versions.
The Theory of Everything (to do with games) (Score:5, Insightful)
At the very beginning of time (i.e. early 80's), we have two very divergent systems: the computer and early consoles (NES being one of them). Comp games and console games were *very* different - compare and contrast Super Mario with King's Quest I. Sure, there were action games on the computer and adventure games (Zelda) for the NES, but for the most part console and computer games were two very different streams.
Fast forward to the mid-90's -- PS1. Here we have a system that rivals the computer for graphics and actually has fairly complicated games, in some cases more complicated than PC games. PS2 solidified this convergence, and now we have the XBox which is pretty much a cheap computer.
My point: you can now pick up the same game on all three consoles and the PC (Beyond Good and Evil, as quoted in article); the PC copy will have better graphics, sure, but for the most part it will be less polished (as it can be patched, and console games generally can't) and will come with a higher price tag, namely the computer itself. It's hard to compare with the same game and sometimes equivalent graphics (i.e. KOTOR, GTA) between a cheap console and a much more expensive computer.
So, in my opinion, there's no mystery -- PC games will go down in price quicker because PC games don't sell as well as console games. Why? Consoles are cheaper. EB Games and Walmart, a specialty and general retailer respectively, have increasingly offered less shelf space for PC games over the past ten or so years. One day, these game companies are going to wake up and say, "Hey, we're LOSING money on PC games! Forget the comp, go straight to the console!" (*cough*BIOWARE*cough*)
Re:The Theory of Everything (to do with games) (Score:5, Interesting)
That doesn't seem quite right. There are two cases where the publisher is going to reduce the price of their product. The first is when they simply misjudge the demand for their product, and realize that they cannot sell it at their initial price (as happened recently with the N-Gage). The second is when the publisher wants to benefit from price discrimination -- first they sell the game for $50 to all the people that are willing to pay $50 for itimmediately, then for $40 for the people that are willing to pay $40 for it, and so forth. A publisher will reduce their price more quickly if there is a broad spread of users willing to buy a product at different price points.
Simply not selling as well, volume of sales, doesn't directly relate to either of these two things.
Re:The Theory of Everything (to do with games) (Score:1, Insightful)
If the same game in the same box gets reduced a few weeks after launch, it wasn't because of the reduced wholesale price.
Re:The Theory of Everything (to do with games) (Score:2)
I have bought several PS2 games in the same period. A few of them were "Greatest Hits" at $19.99, but some were ~$50.
Re:The Theory of Everything (to do with games) (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at it this way: Unreal 2004 was released at $39.99, compared to Warcraft III released at $59.99. I know some people will disagree with me, but I didn't find Warcraft III all that great... I played through it once, hit the multiplayer a few times, then hit uninstall.
Unreal 2004, on the other hand, is the best value I've seen in gaming in years.
1) It's a damned good game, both singleplayer and multiplayer.
2) It contains, what, 10 different game types, all of them fairly unique.
3) It contains the entire content of a game released just a year ago, Unreal 2003.
4) It runs and was released on every major platform at the same time.
5) It includes all the modding tools and support from Epic you could possibly ask for.
In short, Unreal 2004 is an incredible value and an extremely high quality product.
I'd be interested in hearing why you think the quality of video games is decreasing, though. Remember "Old Fogey Syndrome" where people, as they age, keep their tastes frozen at a certain point and declare everything beyond that point crap. (See older people saying rap music is 'just noise', etc.)
Re:The Theory of Everything (to do with games) (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Theory of Everything (to do with games) (Score:2)
Can you name any original franchise in the last 6 months that was exclusive to the PC?
Re:The Theory of Everything (to do with games) (Score:2)
You've made your point, though. I was absolutely shocked when I realized how few new series were PC-exclusive. Almost everything is released both on console and PC, or is a continuation of old series that took off back when the PC/console sales ratio was tilted more towards the PC.
Now, that doesn't mean that there are necessarily less games for the PC. Given the number of profitable consoles and gaming systems out there, exclusives are are *lot* less common, for the PC or for a console.
The main di
Re:The Theory of Everything (to do with games) (Score:2)
Re:The Theory of Everything (to do with games) (Score:2)
I do see your point, though. I've always kind of hoped for a resurgance of the kind of development that happened in the 80s and early 90s. You could buy a copy of Lemmings for: Atari, Apple II, Apple Macintosh, Commodore 64, Commodore Amiga, IBM PC, etc. Most of the good-selling games had ports to pretty much every platform in existence, it was very n
Re:The Theory of Everything (to do with games) (Score:1)
But then again I'm stuck on Eurodance and upper-class (but not snot-nosed) techno.
Console gaming good :) (Score:3, Insightful)
Heres why pc gaming will continue to slowly die: -different OS/Hardware support (try ati with simcity 4)
-easily pirated (have u seen the new ps2 modchips damn!),
-relience on windows (except ut2003 and few others)
-inconsistent performance (different hardware)
-harder setup (drivers, install to disk etc)
-Shrinking market as Linux takes over over next 10 years (LJ prediction)
Re:Console gaming good :) (Score:2)
Oh, wow, you should warn me before making a joke like that. I'm at work!
BTW, owning a mac, I've long since given up delusions about "taking over" the marketplace, I would suggest the same for Linux users.
Re:Console gaming good :) (Score:2, Insightful)
Without that, Windows will still be on top. Sure you have wine, wineX, but they are that - emulators. Sometimes they work flawlessly, others they don't. Even though how ironic it might sound (stability on Windows) people want stability in their games, and developers will target the biggest platform of users until something else emerges... as you can see, Mac is still go knows where.
Little point to making game for Win32 and Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux does make sense for developers with respect to servers.
Regarding Mac Win32 emulation does exist but it is not viable for gaming. There is too much of a performance hit since the x86 CPU must be emulated not merely the Win32 APIs. Unlike Linux, Mac users have to use a native version.
Re:Little point to making game for Win32 and Linux (Score:2)
Re:Little point to making game for Win32 and Linux (Score:3, Informative)
The clockrate differences are somewhat superficial. Apple PR has a history of overstating PowerPC advantages with
Licensing (Score:4, Insightful)
PC games have no licensing costs and so should always be a bit cheaper.
Re:Licensing (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps one good thing about Windows is that because it is so ubiquitous, it is sort of a common basis to work from. But PC can never be as consistent a
Re:Licensing (Score:2, Insightful)
That's when you take in licensing costs; if the game was originally developed on the PC, there's your inital cost. Porting costs probably don't even come close to that, then throw in the licensing. There's your price increase.
the initial cost of the console (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:the initial cost of the console (Score:1)
Re:the initial cost of the console (Score:1)
Re:the initial cost of the console (Score:1)
Then again, you never know.
Re:the initial cost of the console (Score:1)
Re:the initial cost of the console (Score:1)
Inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
Simply put, the PC has no big parent company to push it. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo can all put megabucks behind "their" console, developing first-party games and throwing money at developers to give them exclusives, or at least support their machine. The PC has nobody to do this; the only company who might really have a vested interest in doing this this (Microsoft) actually have a bigger vested interest elsewhere (the X-Box). So, the PC essentially gets games from what would, in console terms, be called "third party" developers, who are developing for the system just because they think they can make the game they want to make on it and that the game will sell. In many cases, this isn't a powerful incentive and in some of the cases where it is, it backfires spectacularly given the low-profitability of many PC games and the rampant piracy in the market.
This all sounds pretty negative. But there is an up-side to it. First of all, there is no restriction on what content you can put in PC games, aside from the laws of the country you're developing (and the countries you want to sell the game in). This doesn't just mean that you can make porn titles for the PC... has anybody else noticed how none of the recent Vietnam-themed fpses have been ported to the consoles? Of course, not having to make sure that all of your games look like the visual designs were done by a 5 year old with Attention Deficit Disorder also helps (although developers for Sony and Microsoft can generally get away with this as well).
The relevance to the current pricing situation is also related to this. On every console game sold, a pretty hefty chunk of the money from the sale goes not to the developer or the publisher, but rather to the company behind the console. In many cases, this can be around 10 per game. Indeed, Nintento's share is apparently very large indeed, which accounts for why, in the UK at least, Gamecube games tend to debut at 45, rather than 40 as with the other consoles, and tend to drop in price more slowly. This isn't an issue on the PC - companies like Dell or Microsoft don't get any such cut of the profits, at least not directly.
In short, PC developers can afford to sell their games for less, withou necessarily making less profit per game than the console developers. The danger, of course, comes from the fact that they probably won't sell as many games, even with the lower price.
PC and console benefits (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. I think that both the PC and the console have major advantages over each other that are good for various kinds of game.
The console:
* Number of users. There are more people out there with consoles than high-end gaming computer systems.
* Identical hardware. This significantly reduces development cost and code complexity, since you don't have to deal with making your effects and graphic systems scale to various systems or work at different resolutions -- if it works on one console, it works on all consoles of that brand.
* Control over the entire machine. PC operating systems like Windows (and mainstream variants of Linux) are not real-time OSes. A console can *ensure* that a game gets the cycles it needs each frame -- on a computer system, it's a fair bet that plenty of people are running a software package in the background that occasionally grabs a chunk of CPU cycles, be it a virus scanner, mail client/notifier, weather monitor, or NTP client. It's also easier to debug problems in an isolated environment. It also means that there are fewer variables that will result in Joe User saying "this game doesn't work on my computer" and returing it to EBGames or whatever.
* Reduced piracy. Pirating games for modern consoles, from a pragmatic standpoint, requires hardware modifications. Many people are quite happy downloading a modified CD image of a game to their computer, but are less comfortable mod-chipping their console. I've seen estimates of piracy vary a lot depending upon the particular game, but I've seen claims of upwards of 80% piracy. Now, admittedly, not all those were sales that were lost, but it's also true that some were. If you can make twice the sales on a console simply due to reduced piracy, there's a pretty strong incentive to choose the console (at least as a primary target).
* Gun interfaces. Consoles are pretty much the only game in town for gun peripherals.
* Initial hardware investment. A decent, midrange gaming PC still can be expected to cost upwards of $1000 (assuming no cannibalism of hardware). A console costs below $300.
* Easy installation. PC game installation and configuration is more complex and intimidating than console game installation and configuration.
* Presence of a good general-purpose gaming controller. For most types of games, the typical console gamepad is easier to use and hold, and is better technically suited to games (in that an unlimited number of buttons can be detected as down at once).
Advantages of the PC
* A broader range of input peripherals. You can get authentic fighter jet joysticks, pedals, steering wheels, gamepads of every variety, weird 3d input devices and weird throttle devices.
* Much more memory. Consoles are incredibly RAM-starved. This is visible not only in loading times, but in texture resolution and in less visible loss of functionality. Give a clever programmer some RAM to work with to precompute something, and he can usually whip up some amazing stuff. Less RAM means less wiggle room.
* A large, fast, writeable storage device. Consoles are limited to slow and small memcards (except for the XBox -- and the hard drive is going away in the next generation of the XBox). There are a lot of nice things you can do with mroe storage space -- store temp data, write data files of unbounded size (instead of ensuring that each saved game always uses under 192KB or whatever size limit is chosen). Fast seeks mean that programmers have to hassle less with clever loading of resources on the PC.
* Higher resolutions. This is, IMHO, actually less of an issue in the 3d world, since most 3d games are still playable at lower resolutions (if less attractive). For 2d games, it can be very annoying to have a smaller visible area, with fewer sprites.
* Much more common network connection. It's r
Re:PC and console benefits (Score:1, Insightful)
With regard to peripherals, particularly mice and keyboards, consoles are fast catching up in this area. It's a brave man who tries playing the PS2 version of Final Fantasy XI without a keyboard and these are widely available for the PS (and, I believe, the X-Box). Pretty soon, I think console keyboards will become standard for the games that "need them". Mice probably aren't all th
Re:PC and console benefits (Score:3, Insightful)
Being able to purchase service for a console is different from that service being widely used (and possible for a developer to effectively rely upon it being there). I know many people that have Internet access, but nobody that has XBo
Re:PC and console benefits (Score:2, Insightful)
Now the real advantage with a PC is that you don't pay microsoft money when you sell a game for the PC but they want there cut
Re:PC and console benefits (Score:1)
Re:PC and console benefits (Score:1)
Re:PC and console benefits (Score:1)
Anyway, I agree with you that a console is cheeper from scratch if all you want to do is play games. But, I don't like most console games (I like FPS and HALO sucked.) I like RPG's and FF sucks ect ect. And a PC has other uses.
I was just trying to make the point that for somone like me a console is not that cheep. Then again I gave my sister (12) a game cube and 6 games last xmas but that's beside the point... Or something.
Hmm, going to quit typing just say "I agreee wi
Re:Inevitable (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Inevitable (Score:2)
Odd, I thought it was $10 (Gamecube) $10 (PS2) $9 (XBox) or something close to
Thought... (Score:1, Interesting)
And there seems to be a trend of PC games coming after console versions - KOTR being one example. Since the X-Box is similar to a PC, Bioware would have just to put a few months into the port, make it look prettier and send it to the publisher. Less time is spent, the medium is cheaper and, if the game is hyped, the publ
Re:Thought... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thought... (Score:1)
they sell it at the price.. (Score:3, Insightful)
just so simple. the game prices rarely have any connection into what the budget for the game was or what you're really getting.
btw, some of the sf2's for snes were retailed at over 100$(what translates to..) back in the day around here(around the time new 'big' pc games cost 40-50$ here). yeah the carts were expensive to make but hell no they were so expensive to make to justify that price. more likely they had decided that if somebody wanted a just a little beefed up version of sf2 they would pay just about anything.
*prices translated from now RIP finnish marks.
Get cheap console games... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know what it's like in the US but here in the UK I'm able to pick up quality (if not successful) titles for under 20 just 1-2 months after release. Sometimes it takes longer but I'm in no hurry. Yesterday I ordered the XBox version of Beyond Good and Evil for 20 and it's only been available here for a couple of months. Of course this doesn't apply to all titles, for instances Halo has only just been reduced from 40, but hey, it's Halo. And you can keep your crappy, although successful, MOH series.
Re:Get cheap console games... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Reason (Score:1)
Price curves (Score:5, Informative)
Review of Econ 101 for those slashdotters that need it:
Lowering the price of a product does not inevitably lead to lower profits. Nor does raising the price lead to higher profits. The higher priced that a product is, the fewer people willing to pay for it, and vice-versa. Theoretically, there is an optimum price that will bring in the most profit for a company.
There should be NO loss of revenue from a price drop made to bring the price closer to the optimum. So unless the argument is that game companies have lowered prices for reasons of insanity, then there should not be much to worry about simply from the fact of lower prices. They are just adjusting closer to the optimum profit point.
Re:Price curves (Score:2, Interesting)
What about zero marginal cost? (Score:1)
Overblown? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a hunch the phenomenon may be a bit overblown, though, and inflated through the numbers of expansions and MMORPGs that are available for the PC that don't start at $50 because they're not a full game, or have a different pricing model that involves extracting $13.95/month from your wallet.
Besides, most decent X-Box games end up hitting the "Platinum" series ($19.95 retail) within 6-12 months. Same thing with PS2 - most games are discounted at retail within a few months, save the best-sellers.
Slightly off-topic, I decided I had enough of the pricing model for both sets of games. I no longer use my PC for gaming, and I simply rent my console games from GameFly [gamefly.com].
I can't even tell you how much money it's saved me in bad game purchases. You know the ones - pay $50, play game for 3 hours, sell to GameStop for $15. Oof.
Very odd prices indeed... (Score:2, Interesting)
Jedi Academy: $60
Anyone see anything wrong with these prices? Well, they are in Canadian so just jack down the price a bit to get an American price. But I would've thought that HW2 would have a higher price because of its popularity (Maybe its just LucasArts though).
Also I find how they bundle games together and then price them is odd. At stores I saw Tropico 2 alone is $30, while the bundle with both Tropico games plus the expansion is only $20...
Piracy (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea is probably that, since it's easier to get a pirated PC game working, lowering the price will entice more PC gamers to actually purchase the games.