Large Publishers Pointing to High Prices 138
Despite Mark Rein's recent statements to the contrary, GamesIndustry.biz has word that Activision, THQ, and Take Two are all indicating that they may be charging $59.99 for next gen titles. From the article: "This strategy is likely to see a two-tier structure emerging for game pricing, where premium titles command a premium price point of $59.99 or more, while less important games are sold for between $39.99 and $49.99 - much closer to the current price point."
gouging? (Score:2, Insightful)
Epic called BS on this: (Score:5, Insightful)
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/07 [slashdot.org]
All it means for me is a longer wait. I've already been getting tired of buying games at $50 and watching the publisher suck up most of that money. Usually I only buy games at $40 or less. I have such a backlog of games anyhow that by the time I can play something new, it is already $20-$30.
$39.99 Was Too Much (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:gouging? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not a fashion snob (Score:5, Insightful)
I can wait until next year and pay $20! Even less! HAHAHAHA!
affordable (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:gouging? (Score:2, Insightful)
Or figure out how to pirate it...
Re:Two words: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't feel sympathetic for the game industry. Games are turning too pop-culture for me. The Halo 2 hype we still hear about? Sorry, but that's just too fucking creepy for me.
I'll just stick to writing [sf.net] and playing FOSS games [jicksta.com].
Re:Remember the Playstation 1. (Score:2, Insightful)
To say that releasing affordable, quality games for retail is impossible is, well, just blatantly wrong.
Price of Entry (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.kamalot.com/ [kamalot.com]
This pricing is going to have a detrimental effect on the industry as a whole. With higher-priced games and consoles, people will be willing to buy fewer titles. The pressure will be put on game companies to produce the "next big thing" to ensure that their game is the one that gamers purchase. Publishers will only seek to fund development teams that can create tried-and-true games, ones that have a history of financial success or a recognizable tie-in to other media. As a result, there will be fewer innovative and new titles. More games will be rehashes with a new coat of paint or based on movie/comic licenses.
This is a terrible future for gaming. Gaming was once a bastion of creativity. As prices become so high, it is going to be relegated to 2nd hand status with more re-hashes than Hollywood. The evidence of this is already present.
How many games are TRULY worth the $50 we pay for them?
High prices like these also discourage more casual gamers from picking up a console and getting into video gaming. This reduces the potential audience for video gaming, making it even more of an inaccessible niche market. With the proliferation of gaming on mobile phones, and the rabid success of affordable handheld platforms, it should come as no shock that many people like to play games, if it is easy and affordable.
Re:$39.99 Was Too Much (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sounds about right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:$39.99 Was Too Much (Score:4, Insightful)
I expect them to come back with the piracy argument, which is totally backwards. "We're competing with a cheaper alternative (the same game for free) so we... raised prices... to... compensate."
They can try (Score:4, Insightful)
They can charge what they want. Standard economics, you don't even need to take the class to understand it. As price increases demand falls. At some point there is optimal profit. As you raise prices you are also loosing customers who would buy at a lower price, while lowering prices brings in less customers than the added profit.
They can try raising prices. However I personally consider $25 on a game too much, so already there are many games I personally do not buy. As price goes up more and more people will cross that line. I know many people who would buy more games, but their wife keeps saying that is too much.
Re:Sounds about right (Score:4, Insightful)
So the obvious question is, what happens if the price customers are willing to pay is too low to pay for the cost of the game? First you decide whether it is worth putting it out to recoup some of the investment, or just can it and eat the cost. Then it is time to either look over your cost structure, or to look for another business to be in. It happens all the time in all kinds of industries.
Re:$39.99 Was Too Much (Score:2, Insightful)
The $50 & $60 price points are supported by a tons of high school and college kids that have large amounts of discretionary income AND time. Even the first 2 years post-college I was able to pony up the high end prices.
Now, 33 with a kid on the way, I just don't have the time and energy for too many video games. I can easily wait for the $30 or $20 price point. And, I don't have cable/sat TV. My PC is my primary form of entertainment.
Yeah, I have the money for the $50/60 price point. I just don't have the time. Plus, I am old enough to remember when the premium price point was $40. (The problem of being "not cheap, just old" comes up with car buying too. "What do you mean a mid-level car costs $25k? I should be able to get it for $15k, max.") Recently when I purchase a game past the $40 price point, I feel ripped off.
Also, waiting has the benefit of making sure the game works. NWN was non-functional when it first came out (for me, YMMV), but 6 months of bug fixes later it was a fine. KOTOR2 is another example. If I had had the time I'd have gotten that day 1 due to KOTOR. Now that more reviews have come in from fans (as opposed to magazines) I feel that waiting till the $30/20 price point is a good move.
By the time I NEED a 6800 the price will have dropped to the low $200s.
If I wait the worst thing that happens is I finally finish Planescape: Torment and GTA3:VC.
Re:Two words: (Score:3, Insightful)
Madden 05 is Madden 04 with updated names.
Same for just about any other EA sports title.
Most of your FPS titles on the PC will be Doom3 or HL2 engine revamps.
Basicly, I see very little *new* code to justify the cost hike.
On top of all that, putting a game on a shelf is SO 2004! Steam is the future; get onboard or get left behind.
No more CDs, copy protection, printed materials, etc means lower distribution costs. Add bittorrent to the mix and your costs bottom out.
On a side note, we had a LAN party last weekend. Even though Steam is suposed to be torrent-based, a fresh install of HL2 was gonna take like 6 hours to complete. This was at a 30+ person party with everyone running Steam. Valve needs to reassess their protocol system and figure out how to make LAN-2-LAN downloads more effective.
Re:gouging? (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll pay $300-$500 every couple of years to upgrade my PC, but there's no way in hell I'd pay $60 each for console games.
PC games come down in price so fast that I'm more than happy to wait 6 months to get games at a reasonable price point like $20-$30.
But, I guess as long as people are willing to play those prices, they'll keep charging them. It's just possible that they might not know the limit, they may overstep their bounds and do serious damage to the software marketplace.
Because if they price their games too high and sales slump, do you think the executives will admit that it's because they fucked up or will they blame the "loss" on "evil internet pirates"?
LK