83 réponses à ce sujet

[RedArmyShogun]

Mega64 telling it like it is in a manner.

Modifié par RedArmyShogun, 20 mars 2013 - 03:41 .

[mumba]

RedArmyShogun wrote...

Mega64 telling it like it is in a manner.

lol

[happy_daiz]

J. Reezy wrote...

happy_daiz wrote...

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.

"I have over 1200 hours in Skyrim"
"...over 1200 hours in Skyrim"
"...1200 hours in Skyrim"

Bethesda...Destroyer of Lives/Thief of Time

I might have to add that to my signature.

[legion999]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

An Australian being a jerk. You hardly ever see that happen.

You'd think constant wildlife attack would have a calming effect on people but NNNNOOOOOOOO it's always “Why is my skin turning this color?!" and “OH GOD MY LIMBS IT ATE MY LIMBS!"

Calm down Australians. Jeez.

[happy_daiz]

J. Reezy wrote...

happy_daiz wrote...
I might have to add that to my signature.

DO IT!

Anything for you, man.

legion999 wrote...
You'd think constant wildlife attack would have a calming effect on people but NNNNOOOOOOOO it's always “Why is my skin turning this color?!" and “OH GOD MY LIMBS IT ATE MY LIMBS!"

Calm down Australians. Jeez.

That sounds terrifying.

Modifié par happy_daiz, 20 mars 2013 - 04:01 .

[Fishy]

Beerfish wrote...

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.

Regardless . Has the price increase you become more aware of the 'do I really want/need it'' ? Especially for something  shallow like gaming.

I'm a frugal person so even if I do have the money .. At 70 $ I will be much more picky and purchase less.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

So, by my calculation (on my mind) In USA:
1) the worth of video games isn't much increased in the last 20 years, considering the inflation, the resources. etc. (30-50$ -> 60-70$)
2) the production of video games has become more expensive (I said before)
3) the power of buying of products in average people is decreased (economical collapse or whatever). They and poor people cannot buy many games in a year if the prices go up.
4) there are people here who have their own treasury, so they are able to buy 20 games in a year, each 200$ price.

These factoids are here to be mentioned as part of the current situation. No need to start a crusade on me if anything is false.

[bmwcrazy]

A game is only worth as much as you want to pay.

If $70 is too expensive, wait till it goes on sale and buy it for a fraction of the price. It's that simple.

[Dragoonlordz]

I have only ever spent that much on CE's or Kickstarter tiers. Never bought standard game for that price, PC games will never be that high price so I am happy I play on PC. I imagine many will switch to PC too because of price of console games going up. One of the major factors puts people off PC gaming is not just the TV+controller (which is ironic given you can use PC's on TV with controllers too) but that the cost of PC is higher than console, this is not a major problem though because the cost of games on PC is vastly cheaper than console.

I bought over 70 games last month for PC, some were major triple A games that were on sale and some in bundles many of them indie games, gave about 55 of them to my friend and kept about 15 and it only cost my like 90 quid for all 70 games all of which new copies not second hand. So in long term you make your money back in savings on games which is going to be even more the case if console games go up. I can't see anyone picking up new copies of over 70 games for that price on console ever, it's savings on games that make PC worthwhile even though cost of the system itself is bit more expensive and like said you can hook PC upto TV just like console and use controllers on it.

What I think industry really needs is cost reduction in development. The cost is way too high those big budget triple A  games these days and to be honest I don't think any game is worth 20-300 million to develop. The price of games is fine really but the cost of development is a major issue that needs to be resolved plus the publisher developer arrangements need to change so that the developer gets larger slice of the pie.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 20 mars 2013 - 05:11 .

[stonbw1]

My big fear is the "always connected" rumor swirling around. No word yet from MS on the Xbox; appears it won't be featured on PS4, but last minute changes have occurred. I'm generally a Xbox gamer, but the PS4 looks pretty impressive from a hardware perspective.

[bEVEsthda]

People will pay for games what they'll pay.
Always been like that, always will be. The downside is that the number of gamers will be dwindling, and everybody will go for the "reliable" (as marketing sees it) group of customers with increasingly formulaic, flashy, violent and silly games. The 'Transformers' of gaming.

Meanwhile, the industry will always try various ways out of this cul de sac. Someday someone might succeed big enough to turn the industry.   ...For a while.

[AshedMan]

billy the squid wrote...
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.

I think you're factually incorrect.  Indie games have never been more popular and accessible than they are now thanks to digital distribution platforms like Steam, Desura, GMG, and services like Humble Bundles, Kickstarter, etc.  There is a boon in the indie games industry right now.  

Modifié par AshedMan, 20 mars 2013 - 06:11 .

[Jonathan28]

Druss99 wrote...

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.

No one buys from GAME mate, that's why they were in so much financial trouble. It doesn't look like they have learnt from their mistakes either, still charging ridiculous prices for games whilst their being sold much cheaper else where. The UK is actually better off than most countries, you can find the latest Hitman for £16 on Amazon UK whilst on Amazon Germany and France it's still selling for over 40 Euros. 

We are a nation of bargain hunters, people won't pay over the top prices and places like Asda/Tesco and Amazon who can take the hit cater to this, retailers like GAME can't compete with this, which is why they nearly went under. I was able to get Skyrim on my Xbox for £20 only 3 weeks after it was released from Tesco, best deal ever. This country is crap for loads of things, but apart from the idiotic high street stores, game prices are amazingly low and they go on special sale very early aswell. 

May this trend continue next gen!

Modifié par Jonathan28, 20 mars 2013 - 07:20 .

[MerinTB]

Video game prices really haven't increased that much.  Go back far enough and you can find game consoles that were basically one game (Pong) during the first generation of game consoles that were at least $100, and we're talking the 1970's where gas was like $0.60 per gallon (compared to $4 now, and clearly I'm using U.S.A. prices) and the median house price was like $50,000 (compared to $240,000 now.)

You could find $80 games in the 1980's.  Not adjusted for inflation, but $80 then.  Though your typical Atari catridges were like $30.  But, again, there's inflation.  Remember, cans of soda were a quarter and a comic book was sixty to seventy cents in the 80's, compared to three quarters for that same soda and $4 for that same comic now.

Inflation.  Read this nice Bloomberg Buisnessweek article for many examples - http://finance.yahoo...cle_111493.html

Another way to think about it is by minimum wages.  In the 70's the US federal minimum wage was roughly $2.30.  Today it is $7.25.  In 1968 it was at it's best buying value, even though it was $1.60 - adjust for inflation from then, minimum wage SHOULD be nearly $11.  (Don't even get started about productivity of workers, which means the minimum wage should be over $20.)

Finally, if trying to do comparitive and historical analysis on your own seems too much work, there's an Ars Technica article from a few years past that is exactly about video game prices and explaining to you that games have NEVER.  BEEN.  CHEAPER.

------

http://arstechnica.c...down-with-time/  --- 

During one of our discussions on the issue of game pricing, we tracked down a press release putting the suggested retail price of both Mario 64 and Pilotwings 64 at $69.99. Halpin says that the N64 launch game pricing only tells you part of the story.

"Yes, some N64 games retailed for as high as $80, but it was also the high end of a 60 to 80 dollar range," he told Ars. "Retailers had more flexibility with pricing back then—though they've consistently maintained that the Suggested Retail Price was/is just a guide. Adjusted for inflation, we're generally paying less now than we have historically. But to be fair, DLC isn't factored in." He also points out all the different ways that we can now access games: you can buy a game used, rent a game, or play certain online games for free. There are multiple ways to sell your old console games, and the competition in the market causes prices to fall quickly.

It goes back further than N64 generation, however. You can find scans of Sears catalogs that put the price of NES games around $30 to $50 each. At current prices that's $50 to $80. This was in 1990, well into the system's life.

"I think the bottom line is that it's cumulatively less expensive to be a gamer today than it's ever been," Halpin said. "And with new technologies like OnLive and Gaikai, you're going to have even more options going forward."

------

So, yeah.

Modifié par MerinTB, 20 mars 2013 - 07:41 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Rubios wrote...

I liked Kojima's idea of having "pilot" games and moving towards an episodic model á la TWD.

I think is better for everyone... publishers wouldn't have to drop tens of million in stuff people may not like, I wouldn't have to "gamble" or rely on biased reviews and paying full price for games I may or may not like, small studios could greatly benefit from more inmediate cash flow, smaller episodic downloads means less problems for people with bandwidth caps, more user feedback...

Also, as much as it hurts some devs ego not every game is worth the same.

I think episodic games can offer a great degree of value to the writing of a series as well. PnP dungeons were often designed this way, with only a rough idea for the overall arc and then great detail poured into the variability and presentation of the immediate events at hand. Making a full 50+ hour campaign all at once doesn't take into account how a gamer may feel/think/react in a scene in the first part of the game. In addition, the way endings are created as content last usually in AAA game development, it can lead to the ending receiving the short end of the stick, development wise, when this should be often the exact opposite.

WIth episodic content, a developer can do a better assesment about what ideas, characters and concepts players are responding to mid-story arc and work to tweak and modify them as they go on. They can create their own schedule to creating sections, particularly the ending, which I think TellTale NAILED with TWD series.

I don't think episodic content is neccessarily the best mode of distribution for all games, but I do think it allows for a lot of very interesting possibilities for the games that really work to embrace the model and incorporate feedback during the creation process. Personally, I would love to see if Bioware's new IP was delivered in an episodic content format, just to see what they could do with the option.



Regardless, video games are, as many have pointed out, ridiculously cheap, historically speaking, in the U.S. The only way this has been combated is with higher volume sales. However, this has turned the industry into seeking only titles which think they will apply to the widest possible audience that does the least amount of possibly risky content. In addiiton, this model also looks to include more and more ways to partition off parts of the game for sale later, through such things as DLC, microtransactions and online passes. These functions exist to charge more to the players who want to experience all facets of the game as soon as possible. But I believe, personally, these practices wouldn't exist with a $70 or $80 price tag for new games. 

I, personally, would rather have games keep pace with inflation (after all, how much more am I paying for a movie ticket than I did just ten years ago?) rather than develop crazy new ways to increase revenue through other means like microtransactions or decrease loses with things like DRM. Then again, I wouldn't mind if game production value went back down, since the same level graphics as what was high end even just five years ago much cheaper to produce. If the market could agree to a leveling off of the demand for graphic fidelity, the price for game content could also stabilize.

But... I realize I may be very alone in all of these opinions.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

@MerinTB, thanks for your precise information. Your comment should be regarded highly. My educated guess was correct this time ...

[goofyomnivore]

I'm okay with paying $70+ for a game I spend lots of hours on (Skyrim, Skyward Sword, DA:O, etc). Heck in retrospect I'd pay probably $100 for those games. They gave me that much value. All the price hiking does to me is make me more wary to buy from other publishers/franchises I don't completely trust at full price. However if I wasn't sure of the game's quality I probably wouldn't buy it at full price if it was $50, $60 or $70 anyways.

[The Love Runner]

J. Reezy wrote...

happy_daiz wrote...

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.

"I have over 1200 hours in Skyrim"
"...over 1200 hours in Skyrim"
"...1200 hours in Skyrim"

Bethesda...Destroyer of Lives/Thief of Time

Obsidian...Master of Patching/Collector of Bugs

(kidding, kidding)

On-Topic: I'm a patient man, so I can wait for prices to drop regarding games if/when I get into the next-gen barring special cases.

Modifié par Galactic Runner, 20 mars 2013 - 09:36 .

[SOLID_EVEREST]

I rarely pay $60 for a game right now. The only way I'd pay $70 for a game is if it was a Hideo MGS game or an Obsidian game. I'm in the same boat as Galactic Runner, I can wait for the price drop. I didn't even pay that much for Origins; I bought it used for like $10 ($14 with shipping) on Amazon. Luckily, the person who owned the game before did not redeem ANY of the codes. I was really lucky on that.

[Sajuro]

Rubios wrote...

I liked Kojima's idea of having "pilot" games and moving towards an episodic model á la TWD.

I think is better for everyone... publishers wouldn't have to drop tens of million in stuff people may not like, I wouldn't have to "gamble" or rely on biased reviews and paying full price for games I may or may not like, small studios could greatly benefit from more inmediate cash flow, smaller episodic downloads means less problems for people with bandwidth caps, more user feedback...

Also, as much as it hurts some devs ego not every game is worth the same.

So
how's that working for Half Life 2?

[Zanallen]

That's fine. Games haven't gone up in price in decades despite a continual increase in development costs. Go for it.

[Boiny Bunny]

Suprez30 wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

Newsflash buddy, not everyone got money to spend it on video games on full price, but please go on being a dick.

Newsflash buddy, full price for games is $120 where i live. Watching people complain about $70 is hilarious.

The Piracy in Australia must be Epic. I would stop gaming if game were 120.00 $. My money would be spent elsewhere in the economy.

I doubt that happens. People can still afford 120.00 just like Australian. It's just that gamers purchase less game per month/years.. Which mean some studio would close and less and less video game would be developped each years..  The economy is a complex thing.

70.00 $ seem to be pushing the boundaries of what's acceptable. Less expensive game mean more chance for newer studio .. Which mean more game developped .. WHich mean more people hired and which mean a better economy.

Yes .. Game are more expensive to create than before, but also less expensive to build and print. I don't know, but would not surprise me that some publisher use cheap labor in China.

Anyway.

The cost of creating AAA titles has grown exponentially with each console generation - what once cost a few hundred thousand is now more like 40 million dollars.  In that time, game prices have gone from roughly $50 to $60 (now proposed $70 say).  The thing which has allowed budgets to grow so extensively while prices remain virtually flat is a rapidly expanding global gaming market.  As time has worn on however, the size of the global gaming market has slowed down in its growth, and even begun receding in the US in the last year or two I believe.  If the market is (essentially) saturated, budgets are constrained and won't be able to grow any further without a price increase.

Now, that's not even considering inflation.  In real dollar terms, the price of games in the US has (essentially) been dropping every year since games started being sold there.  Most goods in any economy rise in price to keep roughly in line with inflation - video games, not the case, bar the one off $10 increase in the US (though, note that I am primarily referring to brand new AAA titles here).

Personally, I think the majority of growth in the size of the game industry is done - if this turns out to be the case, you won't be seeing 'better' (i.e. bigger budget) games in the future unless prices rise or technology improves significantly to the point where the production process is substantially cheaper.  Price rises are problematic of course, as the industry is not used to them - and is likely to treat them as a nasty shock - meaning sales volumes may drop substantially if implemented.

There is a silver lining here - once we get to the point where game companies can no longer afford to just pull the 'better graphics/cinematics/set-pieces' card (all incredibly expensive items) - they will have to actually focus on innovative gameplay or excellent storytelling to differentiate themselves from the competition - which may well bring in another 'golden age' of gaming (depending on your own perspective of course).

Well, those are my thoughts anyway - I'm sure there's plenty to disagree with, and some of that is definately extrapolation, but it's interesting to consider the possibilities...

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 21 mars 2013 - 08:36 .