|
@Syrette I do agree with your sentiment, I don't mean to say every new game has this model, but it's definitely more prevalent this generation. The first game that really struck a chord with me was with Street Fighter V, I thought that was breathtakingly brazen by Capcom to release the game in that state. There are too many F2P games masquerading as full-price games, but another recent example could be Friday the 13th. I suppose with multiplayer games there will always be the opportunity to make that extra buck, despite the product retailing at full whack, mind. |
Analyst - "Gamers are undercharged on video games" • Page 2
-
goatwack 101 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 12 years ago -
macmurphy wrote:
Any way back to work.....
whatfruitlivesagain wrote:
They would though. I remember paying maybe 100, 110 for Secret of Mana and a convertor back in the day. Lots of N64 games were 60 quid.
A football offers more value the condescending twat.
Somethings value is based upon what someone is prepared to pay for it. They could charge $100 but no one would buy it.
But how many customers do you think went to the effort of finding an importer and converter rather than just not playing Secret of Mana. To you the cost equaled your perceived value
Then you were a fool for not owning a playstation
It’s hard to imagine ever being charged that again, because you figure there will always be competition and Steam sales.
But if someone could magically turn the tap off and say games would be £100 each, would you still pay? Of course you would. well that's clearly not going to happen due to the miracle of capitalism. But to entertain your notion I have ceased buying consoles as I do not believe that their perceived advantages over PC's justifies the high cost of software in comparison. I my opinion they are overvalued.
Even at £100, for a decent game you're getting probably a rate of £2 an hour for what you get out of it. For some MP games it might work out as 50p an hour or less.
Compare that to the cinema or a football match. It’s much better value.
Depends on what it is you value. A football match only occurs in that moment at that time forever, it is unrepeatable. In the cinema I am paying for the enjoyment of the superior sound and image compared to waiting for rental or broadcast on TV.
Edited by whatfruitlivesagain at 14:21:04 21-11-2017 -
Dirt3 1,781 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 7 years agoIf you feel like you are getting poor value out of video games you've got to ask yourself the question whether it's because games companies are charging too much or you are making unwise choices in your purchasing.
Of those two things unwise choices in your purchasing is really the only one you can control directly. The other is controlled by the total market. -
Dirtbox 92,600 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 19 years agoI'd go back to pirating them. -
macmurphy 4,448 posts
Seen 10 hours ago
Registered 14 years ago@fruit
My point was simply that people have been willing to pay more for games in the past.
Of course I understand the idea that those times aren’t coming back, but your point that people just wouldn’t pay is proven false.
As regards a TV and cinema being expensive because they’re some how more special, one off experiences - it’s true. They seem that way. But are they better? Certainly if you asked the forum if they had to give up two and keep one, how many would pick keeping games? I think games would win in society as a whole.
We take them for granted because they’ve become quotidian, but in reality they’re amazing bits of kit. They give is years of entertainment.
I wouldn’t say games are undervalued - business has shown them to be hugely popular and profitable and the competition for this market has bought prices down.
What I would say is that they offer great value for money and I can understand how someone could think we should get charged more for them. I just don’t think the economics will ever make them go back up in price again though. -
Concrete wrote:
If your production budgets are so high that every game must be a mega blockbuster or your company will fail. The problem is with your business not on your consumers spending habits.
Rogueywon wrote:
People are always complaining about the lack of new IP and even games in general, look at all the flack that the XBone gets for the lack of releases.
The truth.
They need to realize that launching console games, not even AAA ones, is now so risky a proposition, that investors are not willing to bankroll them.
If companies such as EA can't balance the books on 'core' titles through methods such as completely optional micro transactions, that leaves them with very little room to maneuver. Investors will simply tell them to concentrate on their evergreen IP such as the sports franchises and you will get even less games to play.
The profit margins for the big publishers on console games are not great compared to the size of their payroll and the inherent risk that it generates, but hey the games media needs OUTRAGE to generate clicks so pour some more drama on the fire.
Although this is all bullshit because pubs plead poverty while posting record profits every year. -
Dirt3 1,781 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 7 years agoSO what are you saying, if I pay 60 quid for some POS game that is full of bugs and is boring to play then I shouldn't consider that poor value for money because it might cheapen the amount of effort that went into it ? -
Rogueywon 12,387 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 16 years agoHere's the thing...
I posted on the previous page about why there may be a legitimate need to either raise the price of games or reduce development budgets. I stand by that, but... it doesn't mean gamers should stop kicking and screaming. In fact, a healthy market generally depends on customers making themselves bloody difficult.
In particular, customer pressure is really important in making sure that any price rises are made in the right way. The rejection of the pay-to-win model in full-priced games that we've seen over the last few weeks (and the wide press coverage this has attracted) is absolutely what happens in a functioning market. Customers are saying "up with this we will not put" and producers are being forced to change their plans. Almost everybody is in agreement that the Battlefront 2 model was broken and that the monetisation practices actually harmed the quality of game itself.
Even with more benign means of increasing prices (box-sticker increases, or season passes), I'd expect continued grumbling from gamers. That's what customers do; they grumble about wanting lower prices. In an unregulated market like gaming, that's absolutely necessary to keep producers honest. A largely supine gaming press (dependent on producers for perks and access) has allowed the industry to get away with anti-consumer behaviour for a long time and that's only now starting to change.
Grumbling customers doesn't mean a market is doomed. Occasionally, that grumbling will spill over into outright revolt and you'll get a big furore like we've seen this Autumn. That's actually right and healthy.
Basically, carry on grumbling, but focus on winning just the fights that matter. -
One_Vurfed_Gwrx 4,468 posts
Seen 5 minutes ago
Registered 15 years agoneems wrote:
In the early 90's long before Game (or its precursor Electronics Boutique) I remember new Amiga games had risen to an average of £29.99 with the odd pricier game being £34.99, the PC version were usually £10 more RRP than them. You could get them cheaper sometimes mail order but before the mainstream internet that was a lot less convenient. I remember people being shocked at Doom 2 on PC's high initial RRP of £49.99. PC games seemed to drop in price with the riseof consoles.
@Rogueywon
Sounds like you were overcharged, did you buy them from Game? For years I could walk into a shop and expect to pay £30 for a pc game. I still remember the shock when i saw how much Half Life 2 was (£40 if memory serves).
Steam has all sorts of data showing increased revenue at lower price points. Obviously big budget AAA games aren't going to sell for £20, but the trick is finding the balance. With the best will in the world I am not going to pay £50 for a digital only EA game. Obviously they can charge what they want, but I am happy to wait for a bargain.
As for the topic I struggle to justify full prices as they are and usually reserve day 1 purchases for niche formats (like Vita) where stock will be low and the odd series/publisher I really want to support (Atlus being an example where prices do drop quickly but I like most of their stuff, although they do usually put a little effort into making day 1 editions (or limited time free DLC)to feel like better value). Other than tha it is the idd limited edition that I fancy, again usually for more obscure formats as the mainstream ones are ridiculous in size and price nowadays. I remember the 90 quid LEs being top of the line pricewise... -
One_Vurfed_Gwrx 4,468 posts
Seen 5 minutes ago
Registered 15 years agoAnd yeah, lowering budgets to make sales more viable makes a lot of sense. The teams don't all need to be as huge as they are. My favourite games this year have been indie or low budget ones. -
mothercruncher 19,478 posts
Seen 32 minutes ago
Registered 15 years agoThough I’ve said, probably ad-nauseum now, that I hate the fiddly delivery and pricing of modern gaming, I can acknowledge that the cover price hasn’t really increased in line with inflation. For a genuine AAA game- something like The Witcher where there’s enormous polish, quality and scope, not Star Wars Battlefront II, where it’s hiding mostly behind the name- I’d definitely pay a bit more. But only if that then meant free post launch support and content. Charge me a bit more for the very best games but then cut the shit please. -
macmurphy wrote:
@fruit
My point was simply that people have been willing to pay more for games in the past.
Of course I understand the idea that those times aren’t coming back, but your point that people just wouldn’t pay is proven false.
I did not say that they wouldn't pay. I said that less people would pay. You also in the past had a much larger and vibrant second hand market which helped to keep new software prices down. GAME was the first chain to cotton on to this and monopolized in the UK driving the overall cost of second hand games up.
As regards a TV and cinema being expensive because they’re some how more special, one off experiences - it’s true. They seem that way. But are they better? Certainly if you asked the forum if they had to give up two and keep one, how many would pick keeping games? I think games would win in society as a whole. It's an objective standard to each individual I once paid £120.00 for a ticket to watch Jurassic 5 a few years ago. It was one of the best gigs I ever went to. society would probably say it was a waste of money at £90.00 per hour.
We take them for granted because they’ve become quotidian, but in reality they’re amazing bits of kit. They give is years of entertainment. They are amazing pieces of kit but their value is only on how much someone is prepared to pay for it. A 1983 Ford Fiesta is an incredible piece of engineering but how much do you think someone would be prepared to pay.
I wouldn’t say games are undervalued - business has shown them to be hugely popular and profitable and the competition for this market has bought prices down.
What I would say is that they offer great value for money and I can understand how someone could think we should get charged more for them. I just don’t think the economics will ever make them go back up in price again though.
I fully understand this sentiment but people will rarely pay a premium price unless they cannot get the product or similar elsewhere.
-
disusedgenius 10,677 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 14 years agoOne_Vurfed_Gwrx wrote:
You say that, but I seem to remember that most mid-range games don't do that well. It's either go big or go home or make small indie games.
And yeah, lowering budgets to make sales more viable makes a lot of sense.
At least that was the case back when everyone cried over Vanquish being a bit of a failure. But that was 7 years ago so maybe that isn't true any more... -
If ex user GoodForm gets involved with a warframe and battlefield sequel mashup I will pay any amount of money to be on board. It will be GOAT! -
disusedgenius wrote:
Thats also when they are still up against the games with the massive budgets. If everyone took the budgets down a notch they wouldn't be mid-range anymore.
One_Vurfed_Gwrx wrote:
You say that, but I seem to remember that most mid-range games don't do that well. It's either go big or go home or make small indie games.
And yeah, lowering budgets to make sales more viable makes a lot of sense.
At least that was the case back when everyone cried over Vanquish being a bit of a failure. But that was 7 years ago so maybe that isn't true any more... -
Carlo 21,801 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 16 years agoI'd love to see an article that applies this 'reasonable' expectation for games, to things like films...
Can you imagine if you bought a cinema ticket to go see a film, and in the final third you needed to slip your card into you seat and make a payment to see the ending.
Or you could purchase extra/better actors for a film for a small price. -
Dirt3 1,781 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 7 years ago@Rogueywon
Grumbling is helpful because it helps developers understand where they went wrong, but ultimately the wallet is the greatest weapon. IMO you have to withhold purchase and explain why you're doing so to have maximum effect. -
disusedgenius 10,677 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 14 years agoSpectral wrote:
I'm not sure why gaming's biggest franchises would risk pulling in their scope like that. Not when being the biggest game around pays so well.
Thats also when they are still up against the games with the massive budgets. If everyone took the budgets down a notch they wouldn't be mid-range anymore. -
Carlo 21,801 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 16 years agoDirtbox wrote:
This is what got us in trouble in the first place. They knew piracy was rampart, so the solution was to make online integration so deep the game was basically useless without it.
I'd go back to pirating them.
So even when it was pirated, the 'good' bits were behind an online authenticated connection. -
nickthegun 87,712 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoGames cost the same as 20 years ago? Good. That's how it's supposed to work, more people are buying them.
My parents paid the price of a used car to buy their first TV and now I see people sticking them I'm their shopping trolleys in Sainsbury's on impulse. Fuck paying more for them. -
Carlo 21,801 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 16 years agoMrsyms wrote:
Until EA made them not
Hes correct and I hope they stick with loot boxes and just tweak the design, and dont decide to up the RRP of games. That would be even worse, at least loot boxes are optional. -
One_Vurfed_Gwrx 4,468 posts
Seen 5 minutes ago
Registered 15 years agodisusedgenius wrote:
I am thinking with an associated smaller sales target too not expecting to match the GTAs and Calls of Duty. The problem is when every publisher has huges sales expectations of 4 million plus. This of course is caused by investors and 'financial experts' like the guy this thread is about.
One_Vurfed_Gwrx wrote:
You say that, but I seem to remember that most mid-range games don't do that well. It's either go big or go home or make small indie games.
And yeah, lowering budgets to make sales more viable makes a lot of sense.
At least that was the case back when everyone cried over Vanquish being a bit of a failure. But that was 7 years ago so maybe that isn't true any more... -
Carlo wrote:
No it wasn't. Publishers have always had a perceived bug bear for why they are not making more money. First it was piracy, then second hand games, digital storefronts, now it's consumers unwilling to pay for games and next it will be regulators stopping them selling micro transactions.
Dirtbox wrote:
This is what got us in trouble in the first place. They knew piracy was rampart, so the solution was to make online integration so deep the game was basically useless without it.
I'd go back to pirating them.
So even when it was pirated, the 'good' bits were behind an online authenticated connection.
Season passes were originally conceived as a reward for purchasing a game brand new. It was conceived to combat second hand sales. Then it became season passes and additional DLC. Then Limited editions with seasons passes and pre-order DLC and so on. -
disusedgenius 10,677 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 14 years agoOne_Vurfed_Gwrx wrote:
Of course, but last time I looked the falloff of sales from having less than impressive graphics, limited gameplay scope etc was greater than the amount you saved in dev costs.
I am thinking with an associated smaller sales target too not expecting to match the GTAs and Calls of Duty. The problem is when every publisher has huges sales expectations of 4 million plus. This of course is caused by investors and 'financial experts' like the guy this thread is about. -
One_Vurfed_Gwrx wrote:
It's not that easy though, is it. The most risk-free games are most likely the proper expensive ones. I don't think, say, Red Dead Redemption 2 is a particularly risky project.
And yeah, lowering budgets to make sales more viable makes a lot of sense. The teams don't all need to be as huge as they are. My favourite games this year have been indie or low budget ones.
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
