83 réponses à ce sujet

[Druss99]

Next gen? Prices are rising this gen. GAME in the UK have been selling new releases for £43 this last few months. Not a massive hike but you can garantee that if people have still been buying they will keep pushing this.

[billy the squid]

So much economic, business and fiscal misinformation in this thread I don't know where to begin >.<

[Druss99]

Educate us damn you!

[Fishy]

billy the squid wrote...

So much economic, business and fiscal misinformation in this thread I don't know where to begin >.<

Tell us than .. I'm all ears !

[AshedMan]

I pretty much stopped buying new PC games when they bumped the price tag from $50 to $60 a few years ago. Raising the price to $70 for release titles will just reaffirm my decision to buy a few months after release at half the price or less.

[spirosz]

It's going to be interesting seeing the first wave of releases for next gen. I'm personally not even going to attempt buying any of the consoles till I see exclusive games, which I hope doesn't die out, haha. I'll probably end up upgrading my PC when Watch Dogs comes out.

[billy the squid]

Very quickly.

1 ASD doesn't equal 1 USD on top of that Astralian Gov. taxation is massive, hence the divergence in price. In addition whether people think a game is worth £40 or not is irrelevant, as game prices have not matched real inflation year on year for almost a decade.

Hence while operating costs, development costs and overheads have increased in line with inflation or higher, in some cases the revenue generated by the value of the game hasn't, the price has not appreciated to match real inflation. So we get the rise of day 1 dlc and micro transactions.

Also Game increasing prices is up to Game. The key reason is due to Game's massive mismanagement which led to it's position where it was forced into administration.

In addition, I do hope everyone realises the £40 does not go directly into the developer/ publisher's pocket?

[AshedMan]

billy the squid wrote...
Hence while operating costs, development costs and overheads have increased in line with inflation or higher, in some cases the revenue generated by the value of the game hasn't, the price has not appreciated to match real inflation. So we get the rise of day 1 dlc and micro transactions.

Games sell more copies than ever as well.  Factor that into your equation.  

[Seagloom]

billy the squid wrote...

In addition, I do hope everyone realises the £40 does not go directly into the developer/ publisher's pocket?

Indeed. Stores buy games from publishers then set their prices. The publisher already has its money by the time you see their game in a shop. At least that's how I understand it. Could be wrong. The exception is when a publisher directly sells you a digital copy; as is the case with EA's Origins catalogue.

Modifié par Seagloom, 20 mars 2013 - 01:27 .

[RedArmyShogun]

billy the squid wrote...

Very quickly.

1 ASD doesn't equal 1 USD on top of that Astralian Gov. taxation is massive, hence the divergence in price. In addition whether people think a game is worth £40 or not is irrelevant, as game prices have not matched real inflation year on year for almost a decade.

Hence while operating costs, development costs and overheads have increased in line with inflation or higher, in some cases the revenue generated by the value of the game hasn't, the price has not appreciated to match real inflation. So we get the rise of day 1 dlc and micro transactions.

Also Game increasing prices is up to Game. The key reason is due to Game's massive mismanagement which led to it's position where it was forced into administration.

In addition, I do hope everyone realises the £40 does not go directly into the developer/ publisher's pocket?

Yes listen to the Englishman! HE says what I do, but in a much more civil and nice manner! *buys the squid a cup of tea*

[billy the squid]

AshedMan wrote...

billy the squid wrote...
Hence while operating costs, development costs and overheads have increased in line with inflation or higher, in some cases the revenue generated by the value of the game hasn't, the price has not appreciated to match real inflation. So we get the rise of day 1 dlc and micro transactions.

Games sell more copies than ever as well.  Factor that into your equation.  

Yes with it comes the cost of doing so and expectations of returns. Or do you think Mario Kart 64 was even in the same league as the games we get now. And why do you think it's so hard for indie games to enter the market? Clearly the market is larger so it should be easier, it's not.  Nor did you have the ability to file share, copy disks, the cost of xbox digital distribution. distribution of more brick and mortar sales in sheer terms of number, which costs and has risen inline with inflation.

But okay, because I sell more of a £40 game, the costs associated with producing it stay the same. Why do you think EA's fiscal position is vastly overleveraged and has made a year on year loss. If you think every game can sell like CoD so it's okay, you're not thinking it through.

[billy the squid]

Seagloom wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

In addition, I do hope everyone realises the £40 does not go directly into the developer/ publisher's pocket?

Indeed. Stores buy games from publishers then set their prices. The publisher already has its money by the time you see their game in a shop. At least that's how I understand it. Could be wrong. The exception is when a publisher directly sells you a digital copy; as is the case with EA's Origins catalogue.

You're quite correct. The actual details of when and how much the publisher is paid, prior arrangements etc. are based on a case by case basis. But it does function like that.

[MegaSovereign]

$70?? Pre-order cancelled.

[Maverick827]

Games should be immune to inflation! I deserve free things!

[RedArmyShogun]

billy the squid wrote...

AshedMan wrote...

billy the squid wrote...
Hence while operating costs, development costs and overheads have increased in line with inflation or higher, in some cases the revenue generated by the value of the game hasn't, the price has not appreciated to match real inflation. So we get the rise of day 1 dlc and micro transactions.

Games sell more copies than ever as well.  Factor that into your equation.  

Yes with it comes the cost of doing so and expectations of returns. Or do you think Mario Kart 64 was even in the same league as the games we get now. And why do you think it's so hard for indie games to enter the market? Clearly the market is larger so it should be easier, it's not.  Nor did you have the ability to file share, copy disks, the cost of xbox digital distribution. distribution of more brick and mortar sales in sheer terms of number, which costs and has risen inline with inflation.

But okay, because I sell more of a £40 game, the costs associated with producing it stay the same. Why do you think EA's fiscal position is vastly overleveraged and has made a year on year loss. If you think every game can sell like CoD so it's okay, you're not thinking it through.

And this is a main problem.

Gamers want more, new mediums and more shinny pictures for the most, but arn't willing to pay for it. To see the price of games to stay as they are or go down one of two things will need to happen.

One Techonolgy makes the leap as it did from Muskets to Firearms  (Mass production at quick and yet cheap rates), or a techonological stagnation/regression.

In the case of the first, thats not predicatlbe, or even a sure thing to happen, some things do end in dead ends. Gaming given costs might be one of those. As to the other, people will grumble and the market will be smaller, and to cope we will see games more like in last gen, rather than this or next. I can live with that myself.

Now some might say "well derp use steam!" Problem is the trickle effect this will have. Shops will close, factories will shut down, drivers and routes will be slashed. This places more of an economic burden on everyone, which will lead to inflation or recesion which in turn affects the digital sales. Also "big Gubberment" can stop in and go, "hey look this is a threat to national secuirity/economic balance" its stuff like that, that keeps microsoft as small as it is. At the same time it does nothing in terms of bandwidth, infastructure, hosting, ques, etc al.  At the end of the day someone has to pay for all of that.

Its a case of having your cake and eating it too.

I mean I know in some cases the budgets are inflated, and that some people overcharge and overpay, also governments love taxes. But at the end of the day they have to work and make a living, few things are free that are worth having, and if you want more, you will pay more.

[Fishy]

billy the squid wrote...

Very quickly.

1 ASD doesn't equal 1 USD on top of that Astralian Gov. taxation is massive, hence the divergence in price. In addition whether people think a game is worth £40 or not is irrelevant, as game prices have not matched real inflation year on year for almost a decade.

Hence while operating costs, development costs and overheads have increased in line with inflation or higher, in some cases the revenue generated by the value of the game hasn't, the price has not appreciated to match real inflation. So we get the rise of day 1 dlc and micro transactions.

Also Game increasing prices is up to Game. The key reason is due to Game's massive mismanagement which led to it's position where it was forced into administration.

In addition, I do hope everyone realises the £40 does not go directly into the developer/ publisher's pocket?

Let's forget about Purchasing Power Parity One seconds. Everyone should know that making more does not mean having more depending of where you live.

Regardless. Increasing the retail price of video game could have a negative impact and nobody of us here know the numbers. i'm no analyst expert and not working in that business so they probably know what the hell they're doing.

I just know that 70 $ per game .. I will buy less often and I am probably not the only one. Which could also mean less game being developped and more Kickstarter project. Publisher are already very picky has it is.

So less people working is never good.

[happy_daiz]

I'm pretty sure I waste more than $70 on a regular basis. Put that cash towards something tangible that I can use? Sign me up!

Actually, I look at game value as a 'cost-per-hour x level of enjoyment' factor, rather than flipping out about the up-front cost.

I mean...I could blow $70 in an evening, on drinks and dinner (well, somewhere cheap), and I've only gotten a few hours of enjoyment. So, if you figure, on average, about 5 hours out, that's about $14 an hour. And it may or may not be the adrenaline-induced euphoria you'd get from a good game.

On the other hand, I could spend $60 or $70 on a game, and have endless hours of entertainment. I have over 1200 hours in Skyrim, and it's a game that I love. Even without doing the math, I'd say that $60 was pretty well spent, wouldn't you? BTW, for me, it's about 6 cents an hour.

Modifié par happy_daiz, 20 mars 2013 - 01:52 .

[billy the squid]

The multiplier effect and issues of pro-cyclicality are always there when things like this happen, but I don't think the gaming industry has enough weight to re float or further damage the global economy.

I think the issue of price has always been a psychological one. Increasing the price from £40 to £50, crosses that threshold into "erm, I might look into this purchase a bit harder" so it's no longer an impulse buy, even if the price difference is negligible.

At the moment most trash can be priced at £40 and people will pick it up for a few hours of entertainment. That's what publishers and stores are worried about, when it comes to raising prices. Losing the ability to induce people to impulse buy. Something like Skyrim, yeah no problem. Now the year on year sports games? Would the same people still buy them immediately, if they were more expensive?

That is their problem. How to cope with rising costs without sacrificing the ability to encourage people to buy at the same rate.

[RedArmyShogun]

billy the squid wrote...

The multiplier effect and issues of pro-cyclicality are always there when things like this happen, but I don't think the gaming industry has enough weight to re float or further damage the global economy.

I think the issue of price has always been a psychological one. Increasing the price from £40 to £50, crosses that threshold into "erm, I might look into this purchase a bit harder" so it's no longer an impulse buy, even if the price difference is negligible.

At the moment most trash can be priced at £40 and people will pick it up for a few hours of entertainment. That's what publishers and stores are worried about, when it comes to raising prices. Losing the ability to induce people to impulse buy. Something like Skyrim, yeah no problem. Now the year on year sports games? Would the same people still buy them immediately, if they were more expensive?

That is their problem. How to cope with rising costs without sacrificing the ability to encourage people to buy at the same rate.

Aye I don't think it will hurt overall (that first bit) Just saying that it factors into a price a bit. As to the rest generally I see eye to eye with you. The problem is the costs of making a game. (the fallowing rant isn't aimed at you Billy in general I agree with you)

Like I mean say (and oh lawdy I know some people will have rage faces now) Halo and Call of Duty as examples. Both are of movie quality budgets. They HAVE to sell Millions of copies. So in the end you are left with a nasty situation.

Do I make a low quality game and sell it at a massive price? (Duke Nukem and Aliens)
Do I make a high Quality game and tag on ALOT of DLC? (Most EA products)
Do I make a high quality fully made product and make a small return? (Hmm suggestions?)

There is just no way with where the tech is heading or is at, to keep those prices at a "throw away cash" level for most gamers.  Either Quality will suffer (and hopefully the price going down with it)  or you will sell at a lose, which provided its enough to cover costs and the next project thats fine, minus it limits the number of new IP's you can push out, and the risks you will take.

In part I'm wondering if alot of Publishers and Devs are doing this last one, and thats why we see so few new or risk taking titles. Making a game short of small indie titles is so risky, that a lot of money can be lost in a flash. Money that takes a blockbuster to pick up. And its why we don't see but few nichie titles anymore. And while anyone can say "well make a game I will play" its not that simple. Hell we people on this forum can't even agree on what an RPG is.

Honestly short of a breakthrough, economic downturn, Cuts to cost of living, a one world currency/government, or dumbing down games, there is no way to make them cheaper.


Indie games are a slap to the face of this in a manner, but keep in mind the quality, money, time, and overall sales of these, place them in a far lower bracket and of risk vs reward. The only exception I have seen to this on a large scale is Minecraft, which has turned from a small Indie product to a Triple A hit. Though it still looks like the ass end of a animal when compaired to modern games.

Modifié par RedArmyShogun, 20 mars 2013 - 02:21 .

[fchopin]

I would rather pay more to buy the games than have DLC’s or other gimmicks used by game companies.

[Volus Warlord]

So here's some info for y'all.



Publisher takes ~60% of the pie, a quarter of which goes to the dev and another quarter of which goes to marketing. Generally. There's always special instances.

Next, I can't say this will make me buy less games.

I mean, I hardly ever buy new games anyway. The last games I bought at full price were ME3 and XCOM. I am typically very conservative with my buying habits. Would I have bought ME3 if it were marked up? Maybe. Would I have bought XCOM if it were priced at 70? Probably not.

And if you think this will mean less DLC, you are out of your damn mind. Trust me, the Day 1 DLC is not going anywhere.

[sympathy4sarenreturns]

AntiChri5 wrote...

Wow, 70 whole dollars. How will you poor Americans manage?

You hate us until you need us. Then its "America, oh please....help!"

Then again, we are financially screwed. Our benevolent rulers spent wayyyy too much money.

Modifié par sympathy4sarenreturns, 20 mars 2013 - 03:14 .

[Beerfish]

sympathy4sarenreturns wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

Wow, 70 whole dollars. How will you poor Americans manage?

You hate us until you need us. Then its "America, oh please....help!"

Then again, we are financially screwed. Our benevolent rulers spent wayyyy too much money.

LOL....no, we best not get into that disucssion the thread would be locked very quickly.

As for price and it's relevance, as with most things it is dependant on the situation of the consumer.   When I was younger and had no money in college price was a big issue for me for games.  Even if I bought them I'd still beef about it whether the game was good or not.  Now price is very little of a concern to me.

The most intersting thing for me as far as how things are changing is the sudden success of kick starters.  Some of the same people that beef loudly at the price of a game and about dlc are more than happy to hand over even larger sums of money for an idea of what a game might be like with no real guarnatee that the game will come off.

[sympathy4sarenreturns]

I have no issue paying $70 for a game. The market will set the price, and there are some games that I would buy at $70 without issue because the value is there. Same applies to everyone, and we all have different reasons...as per our demand for a particular IP, views on value at a cost-entertainment time ratio, and a host of other factors. Knowing what I did about Skyrim pre-release, my affection for its style, and the content I knew I would receive, I personally would have paid $120 for it. In one playthrough I'm at 265 hours and counting....even at $120 that's less then .50 cents an hour. Games like Gears of Dead Lost Space come out at $60 and have one playthrough at roughly 10 hours. That's $6 an hour. Of course, cost is a tiny factor of many variable elements that is unique for individual consumers. What you enjoy and your specific preferences is most important. I just find it disgustingly offensive as a customer when someone tries to slice-off a portion of a game I purchased and resell it back to me. Even getting that perception is irritating.