135 réponses à ce sujet

[Harle Cerulean]

Frankly, given that the price for videogames has remained more or less static for years, while the cost of making them to the standards we as players demand has gone steadily up, it's about time they started charging more. I realize it's expensive, but I plan to get a hell of a lot of hours of entertainment out of every game I buy, so it's worth the price.

[zMataxa]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

,DA:O with its original graphics deserves 60$ and maybe even 80$ price tag. . 

DAO was worth $100 easy.  The Amount of content they had was stunning.
To me DA2 has really grown on me - and it was worth more than $60 because it occupies a unique niche as well despite some of the many shortcuts they took.

Compare that to contemporary "Remember Me" ---   for how many hours of gameplay and the comparitive quality?!
Some studios  seem to have the other business  model - keep the price the same - just give way less content/time immersion.  Kinda like groceries....same price...just all of a sudden a significantly smaller container with less content.

DAI -- This is an RPG with extensive story/choices and voice acting.  That's expensive to make.  No one else does it like Bioware.  I think anyone who complains about $80 should stick with Skyrim...and
not try and make DAI the next Skyrim or anything else that "Angry Joe"
rates highly.  Just price it accordingly...modular would be best (that's a whole other narrative).

So in short, $80 would be totally reasonable - assuming they continue with Bioware's tradition of rich characters, rich stories, romantic interludes  and illusions of choice.  With the good doctors gone - and the influence of Skyrim & Multiplayer -- I'm kinda holding my breath about what new direction they may take this on.
In the end, you get what you pay for.

Modifié par zMataxa, 06 août 2013 - 07:01 .

[zMataxa]

Wulfram wrote...

Honestly, I'm not sure what I'll do now. $80 dollars does seem to be too much for a video game though.

I think to be fair to any game...you have to ask yourself how many hours will i get from the game and how much will I love it.  Games are like people - the range of qualities can be stunning sometimes.  Are all shoes the same?  Nope.  Are all gadgets the same?  Nope.  So why would you say all games are the same.  They are not.

[Gotholhorakh]

Osena109 wrote...
If your trying too say it leaves a bad taste in your mouth i agree but i was being honest the customer is always right we are there companys life blood if we do not buy there products they belly up so it is best we get our moneys wroth i do not know about you but i break my back to earn a living

I agree, personally - and I know what you're saying about  the higher standard - BioWare is free to not give a monkeys, but I too fee like I'm down one (expensive) full price game's cover price for DA2 at the moment, and given the interviews given at the time the good will situation isn't much better (I guess a copy of ME2 was given out). DA:I will have to be bloody *AMAZING* to approach fixing that. Not that I'm on tenterhooks expecting it to be - I wish them every success with their new stuff, whatever - it's just that's the standard it would have to hit .

As for downloadable shrapnel, I don't know about anyone else but I'm beginning to find that a little bit off-putting; I like to buy stuff in one go, done, finished, I have the whole thing - if I look for a game and there's 3, 10, 20 items listed and no bundle before I can experience the whole product, I think it has a slight disincentive effect - I can think of at least one game where I just bought something else instead that all came in one package.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 06 août 2013 - 09:04 .

[Angrywolves]

$80 US is too much Will the PS4, X1, and PC versions have more content than the XBox and PS3 versions.
Will some versions cost more than others ?
We don't know yet?

[sunsphere5]

Personally I think video game companies are leaving a lot of money on the table and do a poor job of pricing (1st caveat; just my opinion, they probably have access to a lot more sales and marketing data and can make a much better decision than I can).

As a generalization, if you think in terms of hours of entertainment per dollar spent for a given activity, games are incredibly cheap.  A movie is about10bucks for 1.5 hours (~6.6 $/hr), a football game is 50$ for 2hrs (cheap seats, 25$/hr), etc.  A single playthrough of DAO was what, 40hrs if you sped through it (my first playthrough was 70+, my second ~50)?  At $60 per game, that about 1.5$/hour of entertainment.  A lot of RPGs that I play are at least 30hrs, usually more.  Even something like Borderlands or God of War are 15hrs +.  That's an incredible amount of value for your dollar.  Clearly they could raise their prices significantly and it would still provide me with a ton of value for my dollar while maintaining their lead over movies, etc.

2nd caveat; those of use who do a complete playthrough of a game may not be the average gamer; the price point is likely set at the average gamers' expected value point, which is probably why the price is set at 60$.  The idea of spending 60$ on a game you only play for 10hrs or less and then quit seems silly to me, but those gamers' stupid decisions are subsidizing my entertainment, so I say "thanks!" to them and move on.

I for one would have no issue paying 80$ for an excellent game that gives me 60+ hrs of entertainment (I mean good lord, ME3's value to me is something like 5c/hr because of it's MP). 

I wonder if EA or any company has looked into dynamic pricing or anything like that?  Pre-orders and collectors' editiions are sort of a way to get at that, except in the opposite direction (i.e. spreading the pricing curve upwards instead of an overall broadening).  Anyway, I don't really know where I'm going with this anymore beyond a general "I have no problem paying higher prices for games that deliver on value".

Final caveat; I have no idea if DAI will be that kind of game.  All signs look promising, but like with every game, I will wait until it actually exists before I make any kind of purchasing decision.

Modifié par sunsphere5, 06 août 2013 - 09:47 .

[jstme]

jvaz wrote...
Here is GUN.....proceed to shoot yourself.....IN THE HEAD

Sorry if i hurt your feelings but the point still remains. content does not equal graphics alone.Especially so in RPG.
 DA:O had lots of content and offers lots of repliability raising its value to customer so the price of the product can and should represent it. 
Since you bring guns (and in such fruitfull and intelligent way,too) into discussion maybe this example will speak to you better - COD with same graphics but more multiplayer modes, more maps and more shiny weapons gives more value so it can cost more despite lack of new content graphic-wise.
On the other hand COD with only horde mode, few maps and handfull of weapons but with amazing graphics will hardly be worthy higher price tag. 
 

Modifié par jstme, 06 août 2013 - 10:28 .

[garrusfan1]

uh do you people realize that games are getting more and more expensive. when things get more expensive to make they get more expensive to buy

[mopotter]

The Evil Chris wrote...

Osena109 wrote...

come on dude use your brain

This applies to you too. Some people LIKE weapon packs. Or armor skins. Or small, cheap content that they can optionally put down a couple of dollars rather than having to save up for larger DLC packs.

Just because you don't like them, don't assume that applies for everyone. And, if you don't like them, don't buy them. Simple.

For what it's worth, which isn't anything, I agree.  I do like the smaller content so I can pick and choose and not buy the stuff I don't care about.  

[mopotter]

berelinde wrote...

If the game is good (i.e. I think I'll enjoy it), I would spend twice as much without complaint. I replay games a lot, so yes, the initial expenditure hurts, but it works out to nickels and dimes per hour in the end. If the game is not good (i.e. not something I think I'll enjoy) discounting it to $5 will not entice me to buy it.

And yeah, I'm one of those annoying people who buy all those $5 item packs. I like to dress my character in different armor/robes to suit the mission. He'll wear different armor/robes to meet some dignitary than he would to crawl through sewers.

But if they're going to do item packs, please, by all that's holy, don't duplicate the weapons. Don't give us two elemental 1H weapons that do spirit damage. Switch one of them to fire or cold or something. And not every 2H weapon needs to do purely physical damage. How about some elemental types that bypass armor.

Yep, I also replay a lot and if it's a game I can enjoy I'll pay for it, and I also like the small packets of stuff so I can pick and choose what I want.  

[ForceXev]

sunsphere5 wrote...

I for one would have no issue paying 80$ for an excellent game that gives me 60+ hrs of entertainment (I mean good lord, ME3's value to me is something like 5c/hr because of it's MP). 

Problem is there's really no way of knowing in advance that you're going to get that much enjoyment out of a game.  I've played over 300 hours of Skyrim and counting.  If I knew that in advance, I would have been justified in paying over $1000 for it.  But you never know.  There are dozens of games that I spent over $50 for and only played for an hour or two before I gave up on it for one reason or another.  I think I probably only played Dragon Age 2 for 10-15 hours, so you can count it among the games that did not really give me my money's worth.

I spent $80 for Mass Effect 3 (Collector's Edition).  Because of From Ashes, that was basically the true price of the game IMO.  And I'm OK with it because in spite of the ending, I think ME3 was well worth it.  But at the time, I wasn't happy that I had to pony up that much money up front.  We're asked to risk "wasting" a lot of money if we end up not liking the game. 

With so many fun and inexpensive indie games and free to play games coming out all the time, it's a little crazy to be spending so much on these "big" titles.  Another game that gave me my money's worth: Spectromancer.  An indie trading card game that I've played for 160 hours, and it only costs $10.  A game doesn't have to cost a fortune to get many many hours of enjoyment out of it.

Modifié par ForceXev, 06 août 2013 - 10:46 .

[Foolsfolly]

Catroi wrote...

booohoohooo
I'm an american and I complain to have to pay more than 60$ when most countries have to pay 100$ or more =(

Gentlemen, gentlemen!

...video games have terrible shelf live. This'll hit half price 5 months after release in brick and mortor establishments. And Steam sales happen all the time. You don't have to pay 80 or 100 dollars. Just wait a little bit longer and pick it up for 30.

[David7204]

I'm late to the party. Where does it say DA III will be 80 bucks?

[Angrywolves]

They're speculating.

[Doctoglethorpe]

You can't just directly translate foreign prices to another currency. Games cost more in Europe then they do in America already this gen. The rumor makes that exact mistake.

[Dave of Canada]

garrusfan1 wrote...

uh do you people realize that games are getting more and more expensive. when things get more expensive to make they get more expensive to buy

And when the market stops buying due to increased price, they're left with less money than they'd have gotten from cheaper prices. Selling something for more doesn't guarantee you'll make more money.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

$80 is a good price. I paid $80 USD for a new game in 1986, and those dollars were worth more. I see no reason why games should cost so much less now.

Even $80 now is only half of $80 then.

$80 is that all? Given that video games prices have not keep up with inflation $80 is a steal. As Sylvius stated we were paying $79.95 for Ultima 7 and $59.95 for Might and Magic III  back in 1992. That is 21 years ago. One of the reasons that prices have remained stagant is because developers have been cutting items out.like real paper manuals, DVD cases that cannot hold a good manual or other freebies that used to come with the standard edition. Those little goodies now only come with collector's editions or up.
Development costs have only increased.

For example over the same period of time the average car price has jumped from $16,950.00 in 1990 to $27,958 in 2009. That is a 60% increase. The price of games has remained flat over the same time period.

Here is an article talking about the price of video games:

www.joshuakennon.com/video-games-may-seem-more-expensive-but-they-arent-its-all-in-your-head/

[JerZey CJ]

Haven't MS and Sony said that next-gen games will still be priced at $60?

[sunsphere5]

ForceXev wrote...

sunsphere5 wrote...

I for one would have no issue paying 80$ for an excellent game that gives me 60+ hrs of entertainment (I mean good lord, ME3's value to me is something like 5c/hr because of it's MP). 

Problem is there's really no way of knowing in advance that you're going to get that much enjoyment out of a game.  I've played over 300 hours of Skyrim and counting.  If I knew that in advance, I would have been justified in paying over $1000 for it.  But you never know.  There are dozens of games that I spent over $50 for and only played for an hour or two before I gave up on it for one reason or another.  I think I probably only played Dragon Age 2 for 10-15 hours, so you can count it among the games that did not really give me my money's worth.

I spent $80 for Mass Effect 3 (Collector's Edition).  Because of From Ashes, that was basically the true price of the game IMO.  And I'm OK with it because in spite of the ending, I think ME3 was well worth it.  But at the time, I wasn't happy that I had to pony up that much money up front.  We're asked to risk "wasting" a lot of money if we end up not liking the game. 

With so many fun and inexpensive indie games and free to play games coming out all the time, it's a little crazy to be spending so much on these "big" titles.  Another game that gave me my money's worth: Spectromancer.  An indie trading card game that I've played for 160 hours, and it only costs $10.  A game doesn't have to cost a fortune to get many many hours of enjoyment out of it.

It's true that games suffer a little bit from "not knowing what's in the box", but the same could be said of going to see the latest movie (indie or blockbuster), attending a crappy football game, and so on.  There's always some risk.  Ideally that's what demos and trailers and message boards are for, right?  To provide additional information to minimize that risk.  But sure, it's there, but I don't think it's all that different from any consumer luxury purchase.

But again, this kind of gets back to my point about dynamic pricing; in the NBA for example seats are priced based on which teams are playing.  Conceptually, since the better teams are likely to be more fun/enjoyable to watch, the areans can jack up the prices to match the "content".  I don't know how other consumer products could match this, but I could see a world in which you pay an initial fee to play the game from the cloud, with the understanding that as you play more, you'd pay more.  Not necessarily in a linear relationship, but someone like me who ended up with ~120hrs into DAO would end up paying that 80$ whereas someone else who tried it and quite after 20hrs might only pay a fraction of that.

Or something.  I dunno.  It just seems like the current situation is very (economically) inefficient.

[Allan Schumacher]

Dave of Canada wrote...

garrusfan1 wrote...

uh do you people realize that games are getting more and more expensive. when things get more expensive to make they get more expensive to buy

And when the market stops buying due to increased price, they're left with less money than they'd have gotten from cheaper prices. Selling something for more doesn't guarantee you'll make more money.

While this thread is news to me (I have ZERO clue what games will cost on next gen platforms), the thing about this is that it comes across pretty quickly if people aren't buying the game.

Still, if the market isn't buying and the game quickly drops down to $60, has much changed for you?

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 06 août 2013 - 11:31 .

[Iakus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...


Still, if the market isn't buying and the game quickly drops down to $60, has much changed for you?

Well it means Day One DLC isn't really Day One any longer 

[Allan Schumacher]

$80 is that all? Given that video games prices have not keep up with inflation $80 is a steal. As Sylvius stated we were paying $79.95 for Ultima 7 and $59.95 for Might and Magic III back in 1992. That is 21 years ago. One of the reasons that prices have remained stagant is because developers have been cutting items out.like real paper manuals, DVD cases that cannot hold a good manual or other freebies that used to come with the standard edition. Those little goodies now only come with collector's editions or up.

Economies of scale are also a large factor as well. Gaming is much more popular. Also, optical media (and now digital) reduced the costs of development as well.

But yeah, ironically the economies of scale do affect things like manuals.

[Pheonix57]

I would easily shell out $120 dollars for this game, and yes, I live in America.

[Fawx9]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

$80 is a good price. I paid $80 USD for a new game in 1986, and those dollars were worth more. I see no reason why games should cost so much less now.

Even $80 now is only half of $80 then.

$80 is that all? Given that video games prices have not keep up with inflation $80 is a steal. As Sylvius stated we were paying $79.95 for Ultima 7 and $59.95 for Might and Magic III  back in 1992. That is 21 years ago. One of the reasons that prices have remained stagant is because developers have been cutting items out.like real paper manuals, DVD cases that cannot hold a good manual or other freebies that used to come with the standard edition. Those little goodies now only come with collector's editions or up.
Development costs have only increased.

For example over the same period of time the average car price has jumped from $16,950.00 in 1990 to $27,958 in 2009. That is a 60% increase. The price of games has remained flat over the same time period.

Here is an article talking about the price of video games:

www.joshuakennon.com/video-games-may-seem-more-expensive-but-they-arent-its-all-in-your-head/

You have to take the size of the market into consideration also.

Cars have gernally had the same market volume for a while (I'd think). Video games however have mostly seen a growth in their market over the past 10 years. This has allowed publishers to keep their prices low simply because the number of sales they get is constantly increasing(for good games). Now if we've hit the point where the stats guys say the market has flatlined and the accounts are pissy at the spening, then I can see a need to increase prices. But as long as the market grows(while not crashing out) the costs should stay the same, well unless dev costs start to accel faster than market growth by large amounts.

[sunsphere5]

Fawx9 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

$80 is a good price. I paid $80 USD for a new game in 1986, and those dollars were worth more. I see no reason why games should cost so much less now.

Even $80 now is only half of $80 then.

$80 is that all? Given that video games prices have not keep up with inflation $80 is a steal. As Sylvius stated we were paying $79.95 for Ultima 7 and $59.95 for Might and Magic III  back in 1992. That is 21 years ago. One of the reasons that prices have remained stagant is because developers have been cutting items out.like real paper manuals, DVD cases that cannot hold a good manual or other freebies that used to come with the standard edition. Those little goodies now only come with collector's editions or up.
Development costs have only increased.

For example over the same period of time the average car price has jumped from $16,950.00 in 1990 to $27,958 in 2009. That is a 60% increase. The price of games has remained flat over the same time period.

Here is an article talking about the price of video games:

www.joshuakennon.com/video-games-may-seem-more-expensive-but-they-arent-its-all-in-your-head/

You have to take the size of the market into consideration also.

Cars have gernally had the same market volume for a while (I'd think). Video games however have mostly seen a growth in their market over the past 10 years. This has allowed publishers to keep their prices low simply because the number of sales they get is constantly increasing(for good games). Now if we've hit the point where the stats guys say the market has flatlined and the accounts are pissy at the spening, then I can see a need to increase prices. But as long as the market grows(while not crashing out) the costs should stay the same, well unless dev costs start to accel faster than market growth by large amounts.

Bolded part, I'm pretty sure is incorrect.  America at least has added something like 100million people over the time frame being discussed.  That's more people reaching driving age, etc.  you'd really have to get data on the different markets and their growth rates to make that assertion, there's a lot more cars on the roads now than there were in the 80s and early 90s (if we're referencing Ultima).

the larger point for the gaming market is that by expanding the number of consumers, costs can be kept down, especially since in this day and age, the marginal cost of prodcution of one extra unit is essentially zero.  In other words, once the game is made, downloading it digitally costs EA nothing, and even the discs are super cheap to produce (again, that one marginal unit's costs).