Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Console Game Prices Going Up?

Posted by michael on from the blood-from-a-turnip dept.

The Bungi writes "MSNBC is running a story that I found interesting in light of the previous article here on Slashdot predicting hardware prices will likely fall. The MSNBC piece is quoting analysts that think software prices might go up by about $10 for a new title. The reasons? Among others, more complex games and anti-piracy measures built into the media. Get ready for $60 Halo II."

90 comments

  1. Well.... by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's why I've never bought the argument that the reason software (including games) is so expensive is because of piracy. Supposedly, no one can really copy a Gamecube game and play it on a Gamecube (at least yet), but the prices for the games are the same as the XBox, which supposedly has a piracy problem and PS2.

    --
    Forget the whales - save the babies.
    1. Re:Well.... by The+Bungi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I cannot believe you got FP on my story. I hurt you now!!!

  2. If DRM and other bloat... by GTRacer · · Score: 3, Funny
    ...can make "Enter the Matrix" (on PS2) a fun, sensibly-plotted and bug-free game, well then, here's my 60 bucks!

    GTRacer
    - Not the One

    --
    Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    1. Re:If DRM and other bloat... by The_dev0 · · Score: 1

      I got a copy for free for my gamecube, and I wasn't expecting much at all. I must say, I was pleasantly suprised. Yes, it was still the usual formulaic 3rd-person action game that we've seen a million times over, but after a while you master the controls and the game becomes a lot more fun to play. It just pisses me off that after you've finished it you don't get the option to play through without the cutscenes, which makes the loading times excruciating.

      --
      Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
  3. Bargain Shopping by JasonMaggini · · Score: 3, Funny

    The last console game I bought only cost 50 cents.

    Of course, it was for my Atari 2600, and prices have fallen a bit...

    1. Re:Bargain Shopping by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      The last new video game I bought was Mario Bros. for my e-Reader for $5.00.

  4. So what? by orthogonal · · Score: 0, Troll

    I think we know that nobody on slashdot cares about the price of the games. We only care about hardware costs.

    There's no need to buy games, because we're all modding game consoles to run linux to record from the webcams hidden in our mothers' basements.

    You should see my hidden video bytetage -- I'm way too 1337 to write the antiquated "footage" -- of last week's D&D game!

    --
    Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
    1. Re:So what? by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 1

      +1 Funny for you. -1 Bite My Ass for whoever modded you a troll.

  5. Up? They should be going down by lightspawn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The reasons? Among others, more complex games and anti-piracy measures built into the media

    Anti-piracy measures should increase revenue, not decrease it; otherwise, why use them at all? If anything, the prices should come down as a result of less piracy (I mean, isn't piracy forcing companies to raise prices? That's what I've always been told).

    As for the increased complexity of games, shouldn't it - at least in part - be offset by code reuse? Developing a similar game or a sequel should be much easier than the initial title.

    Remember how a few years ago every game had full motion video? Now that you can get decent results with real-time rendering, we don't need all these real-life actors, just voice talent.

    1. Re:Up? They should be going down by Dark+Nexus · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Anti-piracy measures should increase revenue, not decrease it; otherwise, why use them at all? If anything, the prices should come down as a result of less piracy (I mean, isn't piracy forcing companies to raise prices? That's what I've always been told).


      Well, there's the added cost of the anti-piracy measures. First, they add that price.

      But you expect them to drop the expected piracy % based on new anti-piracy techniques? No, they're going to keep that estimate at the same level (as far as pricing is concerned), and then wait to see how well the new measures work, and adjust the expected % for the next release with those measures.

      I mean, with how long most DRM technologies have held up lately (lasting months is impressive, most last days or weeks), I wouldn't be so quick to put enough faith in them to risk a profit line. And really, if they were to remove the "padding" in the price for piracy, they'd be risking just that.
      --
      Dark Nexus
      "Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
    2. Re:Up? They should be going down by lightspawn · · Score: 1

      They're the ones standing to make money from the success of these anti-piracy measures; they should be the ones risking money. As a consumer, anti-piracy measures offer me no incentive to buy the product; if the price is higher but with no benefit for the consumer, sales will be lost.

      P.S. Anti piracy measures? What/how? I can see them in the next generation of hardware - imagine every sector read from the DVD signed with Nintendo's 4096 bit private key, and the signature checked with every sector read (the console only knows the public key of course) - how can you run arbitrary code on that platform? But how can publishers add anti-piracy technology to the current generation of console software?

    3. Re:Up? They should be going down by maxume · · Score: 1

      mo-cap mean anything to you? Motion capture? There was quite a lot of noise made about Jada Pinkett doing more work for the matrix game than she did for the movie. There will be plenty of work for actors in video games...I mean who wouldn't buy the game with the authentic motion capture, as opposed to some gumpy interns movement?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Up? They should be going down by curunir · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As for the increased complexity of games, shouldn't it - at least in part - be offset by code reuse? Developing a similar game or a sequel should be much easier than the initial title.

      I had a friend who worked at Berkeley Systems on their "You Don't Know Jack" line. According to him, the first game lost money. But when they developed it, they made it in such a way that it was extremely easy to come out with different edition (granted, trivia games do lend themselves to this naturally.) The figure I was told was that it took them 2 weeks to create a new edition of the game. This meant that subsequent games were huge money makers and that the overall line of games was a big success.

      So sometimes the code re-use angle is figured into the cost of the first title. The first title might lose money on the expectation that subsequent titles will make it up.

      --
      "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
    5. Re:Up? They should be going down by Matrix272 · · Score: 1

      Can you ask your friend when the next YDKJ game is coming out? Also, tell him to make sure it's funny, cheap, and not filled with stupid measures to call the mothership on the drop of a hat to make sure it's a "legitimate" copy.

      --
      "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
    6. Re:Up? They should be going down by jjhlk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, instead of an actor and lighting guy now they need:
      - Voice Actor
      - Stuntman (for recording movements-optional)
      - Modellers/Artists
      And both use the usual assortment of sound ppl.

      Prices for all that ought to balance out won't they?

  6. Future by suineg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would think that as we move along to the future hardware will stop being so different and it will just be a matter of aesthetics or just which brand you want to back. Software will be the main difference. I would say raise the software prices IF hardware prices go down. People put a big chunk down for a high end PC and then they buy one or two games a year because they are still paying off their PC. Make a high end PC around $500 and games around $60 and then people will buy some more games for their cheaper nicer hardware.

    Where you run into problems though is copy protection. People will just pirate that $60 game.

    So in order to reverse it then charge more for hardware and infinitely less for software. I guess we will see how it turns out.

    --
    Courage is fear holding on a minute longer. George Patton
    1. Re:Future by Matrix272 · · Score: 1

      Um... yeah, except that one company sells the computer, and another company sells the software. Unless, of course, Dell wanted to purchase Electronics Boutique, or Gateway wanted to buy Software Etc. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that, as long as they make the EB store bigger so more people can fit in at once... EB never has windows, and always smells like teenager sweat. Ew.

      --
      "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
  7. What I want to know is... by Suicide · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If anti-piracy technologies are supposed to make games harder to pirate, then there should be less priacy. If there's less priacy, then they should sell mores copies of protected software. Why should I pay extra for something that should already make them more money?

    Of course, all of that was based on the assumption that piracy costs the industry money.

  8. The best way to combat piracy by huh_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    would be to LOWER the price of the games.

    1. Re:The best way to combat piracy by jjhlk · · Score: 1

      I doubt that would help. Why pay any money if you can get something free? And in places like China were there is a physical blackmarket, that means you have to beat the price of $2. Else people will just buy from there anyways. (And you still get a laser-etched disc too)

      For the MMORPGs, lowering the price of monthly subscriptions could help, but those can't be pirated anyway.

    2. Re:The best way to combat piracy by huh_ · · Score: 1

      Sure it would help, I would rather buy a game for $30 (Canadian, where games are usually between $70-90 here) than waste a day or two trying to download the iso. As it stands now, I don't do either.

  9. Looks like a RIAA company model by gmhowell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Says towards the bottom of the article that only about 10% of the games are big hits. IOW, you pay more for the top tier games because of all of the shovelware that comes out.

    The price will go up until the soccer moms stop buying titles for their little brats.

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  10. Perhaps game prices should go up. by bkedelen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I remember paying $40 for Apple II games in the 80s. Inflation must certainly take its toll on game prices eventually, and I am all for supporting game developers. What I am not for is supporting the near-extortion practices of game publishers (coughmicrosoftcough) who force developers to get games out the door prematurely. That, I believe, is why we see games with so much less spit and polish than we used to. The first time I saw a game seg fault on the Xbox, I raged. Because of that, I am willing to pay $60 for a Blizzard game that I know will be clean and well-concieved. And for software which is belted out before a Christmas deadline so that a trillion dollar multinational corporation can recoup losses on the system itself, I'll pay nothing at all...

    1. Re:Perhaps game prices should go up. by PyroMosh · · Score: 2

      Thank you.

      I too remember paying $40 or $50 for games in the 1980s.

      That's 14-23 years ago, people. A can of soda cost $0.25 from a machine. Now they cost between $0.50 (if you're lucky) and $1.50 in most places.
      An 85 Mustang GT had an MSRP of ~$10,000. Now that's $24,330.

      Maybe these are bad examples. But I'm not sure what would be good ones.

      I also remember paying like $60 or something insane (at the time) like that for Super Mario Bros. 3 durring the quarter it was released in the U.S (1989 or 1990).

      Video games have been incredibly stable in dollars (before inflation), and have fallen stedily in real dollars over the past couple decades. At this point, I'm not sure a price jump is something we can complain about. It sucks yeah, but it's over due.

      --
      Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
    2. Re:Perhaps game prices should go up. by notque · · Score: 1

      I am willing to pay $60 for a Blizzard game that I know will be clean and well-concieved.

      As am I.

      I am however not willing to pay $60 dollars for any other game, aside from a new verison of Civilization that comes out.

      I buy a video game every week or 2, if they don't want my money, cool. My car could use a double overhead cam anyway.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    3. Re:Perhaps game prices should go up. by Matrix272 · · Score: 1

      Both you and the parent are missing one of the main points of economics. I'll try to explain...

      Sure, you could pay $40 for an Apple II game back in the 1980's. Why? How long did it take to produce that game? How many people did it take to produce that game? How many Apple II's were there in the country/countries that the game would be sold in? Let's say it took 5 people (a lot for the 80's) 3 months to make a game. Let's assume that each of those people were paid $30,000 (a lot in the 80's) per year for their work on that game. Since they only worked 3 months, that's $7500 a person, which comes to $37,500 for the game, not including marketing, which is anyone's guess.

      That means that to make back the development money, you need to sell about 750 copies. If there were more than 1,000,000 Apple II's in the collective countries the game would sell in, you could probably get your money back.

      Fast forward to the present... Take a game that's produced now. You're lucky if you can get a team of 10 people to make a game that takes a year to produce. Incredibly lucky, IMHO. Assuming a salary of $40,000 (average), that's a cool $400,000. At a price of $50, you need to sell 8000 copies to make back the development time. Although, that's for a VERY limited development time. How about 2 years, which seems pretty normal now? That would make it 16,000 copies to make back your money.

      Conclusion: There was less of a market for video games in the 1980's, so the same amount of money went to pay fewer people to make games in less time. Presently, more people want games that take longer to make by more people.

      --
      "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
  11. And we fall for it? by nick_davison · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Among others, more complex games and anti-piracy measures built into the media.

    We need to charge this much for games because so many are pirated. Now we need to charge you more because we're trying to negate that. I'd like to call them idiots but we consumers are the ones who keep falling for this stuff and teaching them that they can get away with it.

    The IRS could learn something here. *fears*

    1. Re:And we fall for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before I begin, for the duration of this post I will be using thief in place of what is sometimes called a pirate. There are no boats or swordplay involved....

      Way to make conclusions based on logical fallacies. Like any other format that is easy to copy, they want to include anti-theft measures. They do this in full knowledge that theft will never be completely eliminated in all its possible forms. They do it to hold theft at a reasonable level to the elite minority who are willing to crack open the XBOX and basically weld a chip in there.

      You see the two blunt sides of a double-edged sword. They have to keep the measures just to hold theft about at its current level. So yes "consumers" are to blame and yes consumers have to pay for it.

      You can hide the cost of increased theft in higher prices when they remove the measures or you can come out and say people are paying more to buy licenses for anti-theft measures and keep the status quo.

      Obviously still lose/lose, but you missed the point. Place the blame wherever your over-simplified (and really pro-thief) view puts it.

      Wow the whole thing takes a totally different tone once its no longer glorified.

  12. This is BS by Rainier+Wolfecastle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is complete and utter bullshit. While I can sympathize with the fact that it costs more to develop a game these days, I don't see why that should affect the retail price in all cases. Maybe there companies that are spending upwards to $10 million to develop a game should ensure that the game is good so that they can recover their investment.

    The story mentions Enter the Matrix, which is a pretty crappy game. It seems that Shiny spent $20 million developing it. All I can say is "Boo Hoo." The game is still selling very well (over a million units in the U.S. alone), but it would have sold even more if the game was any good.

    I know that games and movies are vastly different, but consider this: I pay $10 to see a new movie release, regardless of the cost of production. Why should it be any different for games?

    If anything, game prices have to come down, so that Joe Sixpack can pick one up on a whim. $50 is a lot of money to plonk down for a game that might just suck enormous ass. Game prices need to come down for gaming to truly become a mainstream form of entertainment.

    1. Re:This is BS by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      I know that games and movies are vastly different, but consider this: I pay $10 to see a new movie release, regardless of the cost of production. Why should it be any different for games?

      Because it's a diffrent business model. When you pay to SEE a movie, you're buying a service from a thater. Even if costs are diffrent, it's so little and diffacult to explain to the consumer that it's easier just o charge a flat rate per ticket. Note that there are exceptions: The IMAX theater I saw Reloaded at charged extra for Reloaded shows.

      When you BUY a movie on VHS or DVD however, which is a more apples to apples comparison, the prices tend to hover around the same, but 1) They can be diffrent. and 2) If they don't start out fiddrent, then they usually adjust themselves based on quality / popularity / age.

      The same is true of video games. Most are released at a certain price (~$50) and most don't stay there for very long unless people think they are worth it (Zelda, Metroid, GTA III, Half-Life, etc).

      $50 may be a lot. Sure. Wait a month. Still don't want to pay $40? Wait another month. The only games I pay that much for are new releases. There are plenty of older and used games out there that I don't have to pay $50 all the time.

      --
      Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
    2. Re:This is BS by jjhlk · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Microsoft would love to rent you Rise of Nations for 2 hours for $10. ;)

  13. Bottom falling out from under your industry? by neostorm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Games are already overpriced if you really take a look. With multiple consoles pulling players in multiple directions, a handheld system to accompany each of them (almost), and companies fluctuating in and out of existence on nearly a monthly basis, I smell a market crash coming...

    If someone releases a new ET game then it's a sure sign the end is near...

    1. Re:Bottom falling out from under your industry? by simoniker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it's worth mentioning that this 'games going up in price!' theory is courtesy of one games analyst in particular. Even _he_ says most other analysts probably don't agree with him. So I think it's a slightly crackpot notion - but still definitely worth discussing.

    2. Re:Bottom falling out from under your industry? by amuro98 · · Score: 1

      Only one new ET game? Weren't there supposed to be at least 2 ET titles released? One for GBA, the other for XBox/GC/PS2?

    3. Re:Bottom falling out from under your industry? by exick · · Score: 1

      Think of it this way: free focus group for MicroSoft.

      1. Float idea of game price hike by silly "games analyst" on MSNBC.
      2. Hope story gets posted to major/minor games-related sites.
      3. Monitor reactions in said games-related sites' forums.
      4. Make decision on whether or not to raise prices of games (and by how much) based on forum posts.

  14. That's funny... by bluemeep · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I rarely even pay more than $12.50 or so for a title. My secret? I wait until it's in the bargain bin. By that time it's cheap, all the critical bugs have been patched and my system is sufficiently powerful to run the game like a dream. If I get stuck, I can find plenty of FAQs and spoilers to see me through. Works like a charm for both PC and console games. Give it a try!

    Now if you'll excuse me, I have some skulking around to do in Thief Gold...at a 1024x768 resolution!

  15. Protecting the Price Hike by bovilexics · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have read a few insightful and interesting comments in reply to this article that are based on common sense. Mainly this...

    • If security is increased and piracy goes down, then price of games should go down as well because the reason for the high prices in the first place was to make up for loss of profits due to piracy.

    That makes complete sense if of course that was the real reason. I mean, come on, of course piracy wasn't the real reason behind high prices - duh! That is nothing but some marketing/PR spin to justify those high prices.

    I have another theory which I think also relies on common sense, but looks at it from a money-snagging business ploy that I would implement if I was in that industry. To me it makes perfect (business) sense to raise prices while increasing the level of security / anti-pirate technology. People are forced to pay the hiked up prices because it is now even more difficult to circumvent the protections in place, plus you have the added benefit of protection against circumvention thanks to the unbelievably awful DMCA.

    I mean you're all set...

    1. Force people to buy higher priced products (because they will anyway) under protection of obnoxious law
    2. Profit!

    There is no missing middle step, that's all it takes.

    Raise prices when people are forced to pay them and have less alternative options. Does this make the consumer happy? Of course not! But it sure does make the industry happy to see the extra money come in, because no matter how idealistic people like try be in saying, "That's the final straw, I'm not supporting this industry any more. They won't get my money!" - which will work for a small minority of people, but won't for the majority of people who will fork out more cash for the new games. The other unfortunate thing is that many games of late seem to be rushed to completion before they're ready and don't even deserve the higher prices on their own merit.

    Just my $.02

    --
    Are you bovilexic? Moo!
    1. Re:Protecting the Price Hike by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      I mean you're all set...

      1. Force people to buy higher priced products (because they will anyway) under protection of obnoxious law
      2. Profit!

      There is no missing middle step, that's all it takes.

      Why do I hear Jeff Goldblum saying "There is no step three!"

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    2. Re:Protecting the Price Hike by Loosewire · · Score: 1

      Why do I hear Jeff Goldblum saying "There is no step three!"

      then taking a bite out of an apple and wondering off camera slowely...

      --
      Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
    3. Re:Protecting the Price Hike by analog_line · · Score: 1

      People are not forced to pay them.

      As others have posted, and I have posted in the past, there is another viable option. Used and bargain bin games. the only thing forcing anyone to pay prices they consider inflated is their own idiocy, believing that they have to get whatever game they're interested on the day of release. If it's too expensive for you, wait until someone is offering it at a price you can afford.

      If you don't have the self control to not buy a game for more than you feel it's worth, seek counseling. If you just want them and are pissed they cost too much, you're more the fool, and who cares about what you want?

    4. Re:Protecting the Price Hike by Inda · · Score: 1

      I've only read the modded posts...

      You have to ask yourself this question "If piracy stopped tomorrow, would the price of games fall?"

      I think anyone who answers 'yes' needs to think a bit harder.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  16. What else is new by Gr33nNight · · Score: 3, Informative

    I remember paying $70 for Phantasy Star IV, and $60 for any RPG on the SNES. $50 prices on games is not really that bad nowadays, considering inflation and all.

    On the otherhand, there is Nintendo, who just lowered their fees for 3rd publishers. Sega is releasing alot of their exclusive GameCube games, for $40 (Viewtiful Joe, and Billy and the Giant Egg, come to mind). Now this is a great price for some kickass games (the demos rocked). $40 for a brand new Sega exclusive game.

    Hell yea.

    1. Re:What else is new by SophtwareSlump · · Score: 1
      Ditto that. I remember paying $74.99 for the Squaresoft game 'Secret of Mana' on the SNES. I also know I paid $69.99 for Street Fighter II Turbo. I understand the manufacturing costs for carts are a lot more than DVDs or miniDVDs, but then again they didn't have to worry about fancypants sound recording studios and video capture studios.

      I have no problems paying $5 or $10 more for a game if it's worthwhile. I paid $54 for Warcraft III when it came out last summer.

    2. Re:What else is new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I paid $54 for Warcraft III when it came out last summer."

      Sucker...

    3. Re:What else is new by NintenDoctor · · Score: 1

      Viewtiful Joe is Capcom, not Sega. It's also planned to cost the full $50 - not that that should deter you from a purchase.

      However, the Sega games, including Billy Hatcher and the Giant Egg and Sonic Adventure DX: Director's Cut are/will be $40.

      --
      I've moved on.
    4. Re:What else is new by NintenDoctor · · Score: 1

      Scratch that.

      Don't order VJ from Gamestop. EBgames.com lists it at $40 as described.

      --
      I've moved on.
    5. Re:What else is new by Gr33nNight · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ah yes, Joe is Capcom (part of the exclusive Capcom 5), but I did know it was $40 :)

    6. Re:What else is new by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      I remember paying $70 for Phantasy Star IV, and $60 for any RPG on the SNES. $50 prices on games is not really that bad nowadays, considering inflation and all.

      This rarely had anything to do with the cost of making the game itself, but rather with the cost of producing the cartridge for the game. You were basically paying to have a memory card embedded in that cartridge that could save your progress for you. Remember inputting codes in Metroid to get to the point you were at last in that game?

      The standard cartridges for the NES had no saved game features, so the producers of RPGs either had to come up with complex code systems or add some memory and a battery to the cartridge internals. The entirety of that cost was passed to the consumer, of course, and is to be expected.

      I even rented a cartridge for my Genesis from the cable company that plugged into the cable jack and let me download games that they offered for a subscription rate of something like $20/month, which was essentially cheaper than renting 4 games/month, and they offered 20 games with about 5 of them getting swapped out every couple of weeks or so, based on how much they got played.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    7. Re:What else is new by Gr33nNight · · Score: 1

      Regardless, yes the medium you play on (cds) is much much cheaper than carts, but production costs are a whole lot more. It evens out.

  17. I'm Confused by bburns · · Score: 1

    US Console Price Drops Widely Rumored : Gamecube $99, PS2 $149, XBox $149

    Nintendo Bundles GBA Adaptor With Gamecube : Gamecube $149

    Sony's Pre-E3 Press Briefing Summarized : PS2 $179

    Microsoft Announces Price Cut For Xbox : XBox $179

    Analyst Predicts Further Console Price Cuts : ???

    Capcom, Sega Drop Gamecube Software Prices : games $40

    Console Game Prices Going Up? : games $60

    Is anyone else getting confused? Perhaps the analysts don't know what they are talking about.

    1. Re:I'm Confused by gmhowell · · Score: 2, Informative

      Pretty straightforward: hardware price going down, software price going up. Give away the razor, sell the blades. Especially when the development cost of the razor has been paid for by early adopters.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  18. Prices in Ireland by lbedford · · Score: 2, Informative

    $60? Count yourselves lucky. Game (UK retail chain) and Electronics Boutique (the UK retail chain bought out by Game, not the US one) charge 65 to 70 EUR here. Even PC games are up to 50 EUR a go :(

    (Even second hand games are 45-50 EUR)

    Fortunately there are some independent shops which don't charge such stupid prices.

    1. Re:Prices in Ireland by jkcity · · Score: 1

      same in england as well, worst thing is there is an lectronics boutique store about 30m from another store with cheaper prices, and by cheaper I mean £5 to £10 (on new games) yet people are to lazy to walk the extra 30 metres to save the money, plus the cheaper shop has better selection, people are idiots.

    2. Re:Prices in Ireland by awakened+tech · · Score: 1

      Simple answer, buy elsewhere, for instance you can pre-order Half Life 2 for £25 ($42, EUR 36) from Amazon.

      Personally I think that is about the right price point, at £25 a game most people wouldn't see the incentive to pay to have their box modded and find a source of pirated games, and hope that the games work.

      I've just got an xbox and don't intend to buy any full price games unless I'm particularly flushed that month, far cheaper to trade in the games I've completed / don't like, for other second hand games at the local games exchange shop

  19. Game prices by badnova · · Score: 1

    Here in NZ, games are typically $100-$120 for most titles. Resident Evil for the Gamecube was going for $139.95 when it came out. Gaming isn't a cheap hobby, unfortunately...

    1. Re:Game prices by badnova · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Actually, it's the US economy that's in a slump right now, no? The NZ dollar has been rising steadily over the past few weeks. So, yeah. I can see why you posted anonymously. ;)

  20. And how is this news? by NetDanzr · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Consider the following:

    1980s and early 1990s games: box contained a game, a thick manual, and usually some extras, such as a cloth map, a booklet with background informations or cut-outs of spaceships (Wing Commander series). Price per game: $50

    2001-03 games: Box, which is much smaller (in the case of Europeans a DVD box even for PC games) contains a game and a thin booklet with installation instructions. The manual is on the CD; no extras. Price: $50.

    Prices of games have already gone up. What I described, however, is only the most visible indication. You also have games that start at $60 (Neverwinter Nights, Warcraft III), or "special editions" that can cost as much as $80 and have box contents roughly equal to those of games that cost $50 ten years ago. In addition, the dollar spent per hour of gameplay is increasing all the time. Where you spent anywhere between 25 and 50 cents per hour of gameplay ten to fifteen years ago, you now spend up to $5 per hour of gameplay on titles like Command & Conquer: Renegade and Unreal II. That means that where you spent maybe $50 per month on games, you spend the same amount per week these days, or even more. Games are already enormously expensive, compared to a decade ago, but people didn't notice. The publishers used the ages-old strategy to decrease the amount of sold, while keeping the price stable, and it worked. Unfortunately for them, there is very little left to cut away from games, and so they have to resort to increasing the prices.

    1. Re:And how is this news? by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of inflation?

      Games sometimes come with extras these days. But it's not as common as most people don't care. I miss the extras that came with the Wing Commander games, they were cool. But it's the games that made them really cool.

      You're saying that games have stayed at $50 since the 1980s That's not staying the same, that's a steady DECREASE in price!

      I can remember paying a lot for new hot release games. $60 (or was it more?) for SMB3 when it came out. $70 for a shity Star Trek The Next Generation game when it came out for the SNES. $60 for Half-Life when it was new.

      According to this calculator, $50 in 1990 dollars is $69.67 in 2002 dollars. $50 today is $35.88 in 1990 dollars.

      I'm not saying we should ever be hapy about prices going up (even if it's just a market adjustment) but this is over due. I can't remember video game prices ever going up long term in flat dollars.

      --
      Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
    2. Re:And how is this news? by NetDanzr · · Score: 1

      Yup, I know of inflation. That's a very common argument in favor of increasing the game prices, and I must say it is a very valid argument. Where I and those who support that argument differ is the definition of the price of the game. I view the price of a game as an amount paid for an hour of entertainment. After all, games are entertainment products, just like movies and books, and I view them as pretty good substitutes. Others view the price for a game only by what's on the label. Following the latter definition, the price of games is certainly lower than it used to be, due to inflation. However, consider my definition for a moment. I said that some games offered as little as $0.50 per game of entertainment, while many current games offer up to $5 per hour of entertainment. If I paid $50 for a game that I could play for 50 hours in 1990, or $1/hour, the fair price for such a game would be $1.40/hour today. Unfortunatelly, I pay up to $5/hour today, more than three times the current price. In fact, compared to a $50 old game from my example, this new game would cost $178 if they offered the same length of entertainment. That's way more than I am willing to pay.

    3. Re:And how is this news? by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      There's all kinds of diffrent ways of measuring this.

      One can argue that a game like Shadowgate may have given you 20 hours of play time inisially (or 40 or 100, depending) but that it's not worth ever picking up again after beating it.

      Super Mario 3 on the other hand can be beaten for the first time in just a few hours by a good player. But it has enormous replay value. I still play it today.

      The same can be said for gams today. I rented Luigi's Mansion. The game is georgous, and I didn't put it down until I beat it. But I'm very glad I didn't buy it. Not only was it very short, and easy, (I think I only died once) but there wasn't much point in replaying it.

      Ikaruga on the other hand...

      Not to mention that there are games that regardless of skill level, simply dwarf games that were considered huge in the past. Zelda Ocarina of Time seemed like a real world. I know that the world had edges, and I even knew about where those edges were by the end of the game. But I never felt constrained. Compare that to any NES game.

      Half-Life I played over and over again. It's great game play and a great story. Ditto for Starcraft and ditto for both games expansion packs (Op4, Blue Shift and Brood War).

      But there were old games that I beat quickly. Loom for instance, I beat in a single sitting. Amazing game, but I've only played it once. Out of This World was only like 10 hours (if that) and once I beat it, it was just like Shadow Gate: formulaic. Once you know how to beat it it will never challenge you again. I've picked up Out of This World agian since beating it, but only because I had friends that wanted to see it beaten. Because of the nature of the game, it was easy to show them in like an hour.

      I will admit that games on average tend to have less replay value once beaten these days. I'm less likely to play Mario Sunshine from beginning to end again than I am to play Super Mario 3 that way. But I think you get a lot more out of a game the first time today. There's also far fewer games that are diffacult to the point of being unfun (Destination Earthstar, Golgo 13, and Super Glove Ball come to mind).

      --
      Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
  21. It make more sense with the two articles in mind by eldimo · · Score: 1

    Actually, It make more sense with the two articles in mind.

    Could it be a move a la "printer (a.k.a. razor) business model"? Give the hardware, then make it back on the software (using royalties).

  22. See you, suckers! by Tom7 · · Score: 1

    > "Get ready for $60 Halo II."

    Yeah, and get ready for me not buying it. The price of console games has been getting awful! Personally, I just live a year or two behind the new release schedule, and get games out of the bargain/used section for much cheaper.

    1. Re:See you, suckers! by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      When is the last time there was a price increase in video games?

      This is not a rhetorical question.

      --
      Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
  23. Here's an idea by Kris_J · · Score: 1
    Fire the whole damn marketing division in your games development house, cancel all anti-piracy measures and contracts, drop region coding and produce a single version in a single factory then pass on the savings in the form of cheaper games prices.

    Damn, there's some stupid crap that makes up the high prices in games. Actually, anyone got a cute little pie-chart showing where the money goes when you buy a, say, PS2 game? I bet marketing is at least a 3rd.

    1. Re:Here's an idea by jjhlk · · Score: 1

      Put a bit more money (effort really) into the game and people will actually *want* to buy it too!

  24. Hmmmm.... by gamgee5273 · · Score: 1
    ...hence the reason M$ isn't getting my money for an Xbox. I'll live without Halo 2, thank you very much. :)

    Honestly, though, I had heard (about six months ago, but still) that Sony was going to announce a $39.99 price point for the PS2 games and that people were hoping M$ and Nintendo would follow. Has anyone heard more about that?

    1. Re:Hmmmm.... by neostorm · · Score: 1

      No company makes profit on their consoles. Nearly every console is sold at a loss and the profit is made from game sales and licensing fees.
      This is why the console sales can drop, but game sales raise. They're not really losing any money from it as long as people continue to buy games. If you take a $50 loss on each piece of hardware, and each person buys at least 1 $60 piece of software to use on that hardware, you're making $10 of profit for each sale.

    2. Re:Hmmmm.... by MaverickUW · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't tell me we're back to this. Your statement is simply not true at all. X-box and Ps2 have been sold at a loss, but the Nintendo Gamecube, Gameboy Advance, and the Gameboy Advance SP have NEVER during their entire life cycles yet been sold for a loss whatsoever. Nintendo is making the Gamecube's right now for only about $50, so even giving away a free game, they still make over $50 a console sold in profit.

      The original Gameboy Advance, they were able to lower the cost point of that down so low that they reduced the price of the system when it was still selling like hotcakes. I may be wrong, but I don't think any manufacterer has ever done anything like that before. That would have been like Microsoft selling Halo for $20 after it hit a million copies sold.

      The GBA SP is still selling at a profit and always has.

      Also, your post makes it seem like you're saying that selling games is pure profit, but it's not. Of a $50 game, between $2.50 and $5 goes to the store that sold it, another $20 or so to the company whose console it's sold for, then the rest back to the developer, to cover the cost of production, design, and manufactering.

      And losses for the two consoles being sold at a loss are supposed to currently be over $50... so no, one game does not make up for selling a console at a loss. Normally, It is 6-8 games that is considered the point for breaking even.

    3. Re:Hmmmm.... by jkcity · · Score: 1

      "Don't tell me we're back to this. Your statement is simply not true at all. X-box and Ps2 have been sold at a loss, but the Nintendo Gamecube, Gameboy Advance, and the Gameboy Advance SP have NEVER during their entire life cycles yet been sold for a loss whatsoever. Nintendo is making the Gamecube's right now for only about $50, so even giving away a free game, they still make over $50 a console sold in profit."

      does that include development costs?

    4. Re:Hmmmm.... by neostorm · · Score: 1

      It was a generalization in an attempt to explain the basic working theory behind console game sales. I was not using real numbers, and you overlooked the *If* in my main point, which was a hypothetical explanation.

      "If you take a $50 loss..."

      Also, I should have specifically said set-top consoles, so I appologize for that misunderstanding. I was not referring to handhelds. I wasn't aware of the gamecubes being so cheap, but aside from that the majority of consoles in gaming history (Atari 2600 to the SNES to the PS1 at launch) were sold at a loss of profit for the manufacturer, only to be recouped in game sales.

      Furthermore, my explanation on game sale profits was also for explanation purposes only. It would be absolutely foolish to assume that games were pure profit, but there are simply far too many variables to list that impact on profits and expenses from every aspect of the market. Hence the generalization for the purpose of a simple explaination.

      When it comes down to it however, loss of profit on console sales is countered by licensing to second and third parties as well as profits from the sale of the games.
      When you say "Oh we're back to this again" you make it sound like this is a tired, old, fallacious argument. But that is simply not the case, as it has been this way (I believe) since the mid 1980s when Nintendo imposed their licensing plans and released their first console in the US.

    5. Re:Hmmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Honestly, though, I had heard (about six months ago, but still) that Sony was going to announce a $39.99 price point for the PS2 games and that people were hoping M$ and Nintendo would follow. Has anyone heard more about that? "

      Yeah, they did that a while back. Sony's PS2 games (their *own* games, first-party) are $39.95.

      Which makes me doubtful of the idea that they're gonna jack them back up anytime soon - the backlash would be too great.

    6. Re:Hmmmm.... by edwdig · · Score: 1

      The GameCube is cheap, but I've heard more like $100 than $50. The GameCube is a more powerful system than the PS2, so I can't see that huge of a price difference between them. But it still would be significant, as the GC drive can only read GC discs, whereas the PS2 has a second laser for readings CDs, plus also includes DVD playback licensing fees.

      Nintendo's royalty rates are rumored to be as follows (according to IGN): Publishers must pay a licensing fee of $10 to Nintendo for games with a $50 MSRP, $8.50 for $40 games, $7 for $30 games, and $5.50 for $20 games. Nintendo's rates are also supposedly still the highest, so it's no where near the $20 figure you said.

      Also, I think an 8 MB GBA cartridge costs $7-$8 from Nintendo. I'm assuming that price includes the royalty fees, but I don't know for sure.

    7. Re:Hmmmm.... by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      And losses for the two consoles being sold at a loss are supposed to currently be over $50... so no, one game does not make up for selling a console at a loss. Normally, It is 6-8 games that is considered the point for breaking even

      No one's stupid enough to sell at such a high loss that it takes 6-8 games to break even. Shortly after the XBox came out Microsoft made a very big deal about having the highest attach rate (# of games sold per console) for a console within the first X number of months (think it was 6 months, guess Ill have to look for the press release). The attach rate was 4. Going into a market where 4 games per console is a high (even highest ever) attach rate with a loss that requires 6-8 games to break even just isn't going to happen. Even the amount of money Microsoft expected to lose on the console didn't amount to needing an attach rate that was double their initial rate to break even.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    8. Re:Hmmmm.... by MaverickUW · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you listen to Microsoft's strategy, they don't care if the X-box breaks even. Put it this way: Through the last financial cycle, counting sales of hardware and games, Microsoft has lost half a billion dollars on the X-box. If you read one of the earlier replies that said $10 a copy royalties for a $50 game, and Microsoft was losing between 100-150 a console at the start of the X-box's system life, it would take 10-15 games just to break even. Attach rate is also only counting first few months sales... over the long term of the console, it's expected most people would buy the 10-15 games. Plus eventually the prices should become cheap enough to produce the console they get a profit from it at the end of the system's lifespan. So since Microsoft has lost so much money, it does signal infact that it does take a lot for them to break even.

  25. MSNBC by KU_Fletch · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's a sad day when we're getting video game news from MSNBC. It seems like anybody with half a credential could send out a news release "predicting" a price change and some news outlet would report it. Don't believe the hype until Sony/Big N/MS say something.

    --
    It's not stupid. It's advanced.
  26. Where's The Evidence? by Babbster · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I didn't see a single thing in that article that points to higher prices coming for video games besides the opinion of one marketing analyst. The articles says that this guy "has been tracking some of the biggest players in the industry." Yeah, and so have I. And MY tracking indicates that not only is there no evidence that prices are going to go up (they've remained static for YEARS) but there's every possibility that prices could go down (as an example, I bought GTA Vice City in its first week at $40).

    MY analysis, were I so bold as to make one, would including looking at a similar industry and the trends there: VHS/DVD sales. Specifically, when pre-recorded VHS movies hit the market, they were sold entirely for the purpose of rental. The prices would start at around $50 and peak at around $100 per copy. Once enough people had VCRs and production costs for VHS tapes had dropped enough, movie studios took a look at the market and wondered if they could actually get people to BUY the movies. ET debuts at $20 (discounted soon after to $15) and just about everybody ran out and got a copy. Seeing that they had something there, everyone started jumping on the bandwagon. By the time DVDs started their meteoric rise BRAND NEW VHS movies could be had for $10-15 a piece and bargain bins were filled with videos between $5-10 each. DVD has followed suit, though much faster because of the incredibly rapid adoption of the format by consumers.

    Even more on point, one could look at the prices of Atari 2600 games. Those prices dropped significantly once the 2600 reached a critical mass where just about everybody had one - and those were on cartridges which are more expensive to produce than DVDs. (Prices also fell when the video game market went to pot but we'll ignore that here.)

    If we then look at video games, it's clear that a similar result is on the horizon. While it's unlikely that top-flight games are going to drop as low as $20 a piece (they don't get box office revenues like movies do), the number of consoles in use today is so much larger than it ever has been that even a bad PS2 game can sell 50,000 units ($2.5 million retail) in the US and great games can sell into the millions. If console makers ever manage to understand the potential benefits, they could all change their royalty structures (as Nintendo recently has) and a $10 price drop across the board could end up spurring even more sales. A $10 price increase, on the other hand, will likely show an even more significant negative effect.

    Obviously, I'm no market analyst so you can take my thoughts and words with a grain of salt. But I certainly wouldn't give any more weight to the ideas of a single market analyst (and a writer who was probably desperate for a story and happened to see a press release) who, unless he has access to actual top executives who are TELLING HIM that prices are going to go up, is also just talking out his ass.

    If prices do happen to go up $10, I expect that they'll drop right back down once they see what I expect will be a chilling result on sell-through.

    1. Re:Where's The Evidence? by Babbster · · Score: 1

      I hate replying to myself, but I have this side-note: I think it far more likely that, considering the development costs associated with current video games, fewer games will end up being developed in the future, or there will be a LOT more standardization in terms of graphic engines and other portable code. We'll just have to hope that those fewer games include the really good games and not the really average/bad games.

  27. Cut the middleman. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then they should increase the profit margins before they increase prices if they're in that much trouble. Selling the games direct mail-order over the internet:

    $50 - $5 media & pack - $5 shipping = $40 income.

    They could experiment with lower prices as well - and find out what price point they become more popular.

  28. CD's were supposed to be cheaper by Man+In+Black · · Score: 1

    Remember when the SegaCD came out, and everyone kept saying how CD's were cheaper to make than big bulky cartridges, so moving to an all-CD platform would be cheaper! After all, it costs a few pennies to stamp a CD if you do a huge production run.

    What the neglected to mention is that the companies completely realized this, and took the "savings" for themselves, along with any extra profits they could take.

    I can fully understand charging more because it takes more to make the game (I mean hell, Phantasy Star Online sure took a lot more to make than Pitfall or Super Mario I'm sure), but saying that price hikes will be due to piracy is just a red herring to throw people off of the fact that companies just want to make more money without having to make better games.

    I'm surprised the RIAA hasn't tried this yet.

    --
    -"One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man." -EH
  29. *BSD is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying

    One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

    You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

    FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

    Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

    OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

    Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

    All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

    Fact: *BSD is dying

  30. Similar prices in Sweden by danro · · Score: 1

    The price level is the same in Sweden.
    Is this the general rule or an exception? What do console games cost in the rest of Europe?

    Why are we getting shafted worse than the US and asian markets?

    --

    "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
  31. Same here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The other advantage to waiting a year or two to play games is that you don't need to spend a fortune on bleeding-edge hardware. By the time the game drops below the $20 point, it'll run smoothly on hardware that's a couple of years old.

    I've just gotten into Diablo II and Fallout myself... Then I have Zork Grand Inquisitor to play.

  32. oh come on! by mezo · · Score: 1

    this article actually said that no one would complain if top end games jumped up $10 in price. I SURE AS HELL WOULD! they also said no one cared that socom (misspelled in the article as "socum") navy seals was retailing for $60. i dont know about anyone else, but i wasnt happy about that! however, i accepted it b/c the box contained a headset for the game, which is useful and i would accept paying an extra $10 for that. also, as someone else above me pointed out, most new games have smaller packages and come with less stuff then games used to, thereby decreasing their production costs. socom, if you all remember, game in a significantly different package thany any other ps2 game i can think of. that also would increase the cost a little. the article even said "people dont care about prices going up, game developers do." WHAT?! PEOPLE DONT CARE?! right, we would willingly shell out more money for no reason, but its the wonderful developers (read as "distributors", since i doubt the people who litterally develope the games have any say as to how much they cost) who are so good hearted that they want to keep prices down for us. RIIIIIGHHTTT. no one wants to pay more! NO ONE! who the hell did this article interview? 10 year old boys who dont pay for their own games anyway?! "sure, id pay an extra bajillion dollars for the new pokemon game. my mommy buys it for me anyway." ::as the child starts to pick his nose::

  33. RIAA/MPAA for games? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
    Is there an industry association for games yet? Cuz I know I've seen more than a few computer games (and ISO's) on the P2P services. If there isn't somethign akin tot he RIAA/MPAA for games yet, there sure as hell will be.

    Remember kids, playing a game that you didn't pay for at your friends house is STEALING!

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  34. Where do they get these ideas? by Nonki · · Score: 1

    "more complex games and anti-piracy measures built into the media. Get ready for $60 Halo II."

    What is this guy talking about? Seriously, there are no new anti-piracy techniques on Halo 2, XBOX games all use the same standard that hasn't even been cracked yet. Citing piracy as a reason for price hike is just moronic, as it will driv3 the pirates to want to pirate the game even more, by principle or just not wanting to pay the extra $10. Most consoles don't have much of a problem with piracy anyways, whereas the last generation you could just use swap disc techniques or a simple booter on the disc, you need a modchip on the xbox or ps2, and you can't even do it with gamecube. On the PC, piracy will always be rampant as long as people want games for free, and they just have to face it.

    As for complexity of games, Halo is a lot more complex than an atari game, but they still cost the same price when they came out.

    1. Re:Where do they get these ideas? by jjhlk · · Score: 1

      There are mod chips for the XBox. The encryption hasn't been broken though, so if Halo 2 detects the old style mod chips they won't work anymore. Though I say this with little knowledge about the Xbox because i can't afford one...

  35. Hi, about those price updates.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not that big of a deal. If they do go through with the increase in prices, it's not going to kill us. Hey, if Halo 2 is really that good, it just might be worth $60 for it. To somewhat counter this price increase, I have a website to help gamers find the cheapest new Xbox games out there. In a way, I'm like bizrate.com or priceline.com, it's a free service. I also talk about Xbox mod chips, the "real" cost of piracy, and how to be a cheap-o when it comes to buying Xbox games. Don't worry, everything is free, it's my own personal site people. :)

    www.cheap-xbox-games-retriever.com

    Before you leave sign up for my free newsletter and I'll let you know where the bargains are and latest price updates on my site.