Higher Game Prices Explored

An Anonymous Reader writes: "Next Generation has a feature interviewing a dozen or so developers, publishers and analysts on the new $60 price for games. Generally, publishers are positive, developers are skeptical and analysts are mixed." From the article: "The next gen world is considerably more complex - and prices for titles that deliver on pushing this complexity will definitely reflect that. We couldn't deliver the type of consumer experiences we're delivering in Full Auto as an example, on an existing machine. Hardcore gamers probably remember that $59 retail price points are not that unusual. Going back to N64 and as far back as the 16-bit generation - there were cartridge based games, some with battery back up that routinely cost $59. Those price points were to cover the larger cost of goods - in the next gen world it's to afford better artificial intelligence and technology, which I believe delivers better value to the consumer."

Comments

Interviewing the wrong people

[Winterblink]

..interviewing a dozen or so developers, publishers and analysts on the new $60 price...

Maybe they should interview some consumers and see what THEY think of the new pricing of these games...

Re:Interviewing the wrong people

[KDR_11k]

Most execs probably know what we think about that and they know that the price point is risky because it'll reduce sales. In fact I doubt they'll make more money at 60$ than at 50$. And I hope they won't raise the price in Europe as well, 60 Euros for a console game is already freaking outrageous, compared to 45 for a PC game that's completely localized (including voice acting) and released here the same day as in the states. If they up the console game prices to 70 Euros that'll hit their bottom line.

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. People seem to forget that many console and PC games easily cost $60, $70, or even $80 on their release, little more than a decade ago. Hell, I still have a sticker on my copy of Street Fighter II for the SNES with a SALE sticker on it marking the price DOWN to $74.99.

Pick up an aging PC or console gaming mag and just look at the prices, which don't even have inflation factored into them.

On the flip side, it's a hell of a lot cheaper for the publishers to actually produce the physical copies of these games (DVDs are probaly pressed for a couple pennies, compared to the insane amount needed to make a NeoGeo cartridge), so they're certainly going to be the ones who benefit the most from this.

yeah 60 dollars, more complex. BS!

[kinglink]

After you factor in the tools like Renderware as well as others, you realize game designers do far less.

The fact is the line that "The next gen world is considerably more complex - and prices for titles that deliver on pushing this complexity will definitely reflect that."

Yeah I really think the next Need for Speed game really has the same level of complexity that Xenogears (the original) and Gran Turismo have. the fact is that if you priced games by complexity it'd be easier to tell who did the most work.

The reason why the game world is going in the crapper is every other game that is released is a sequal of a lousy first game, or a rip off of another game, or worse a port of a game from a different version (console to console, Console to PC, Pc to console.). I liked Half Life 2, Morrowind, UT2004, and Doom 3, but I don't need Big Mother Truckers 2, BloodRayne 2, or Fantastic 4.

I love most of GTA, but Mafia was aweful, Driver is terrible, and True crime just sucked. Yet all those have sequals coming? And let's not fail to meantion all the RPGs that fell short, all the racing games that just arn't needed, and all action games that is just mindless violence.

And let's remember all those games started on the PC ported to the Xbox (or bought for the Xbox) and then brought back to the PC? Deus Ex was an excellent game, the sequal? restricted. Morrowind at least was done right, Halo had a lofty goal (3 different playable races) until it became part of the Microsoft family, and Splinter Cell? I remembered that game when it was just called thief.

There's too many crap games that try to be different but end up being the same old crap. Of course let's not also meantion those ultra short single player games that get all their points from Muliplayer? And half the problem is these reviewing sites that never rate stuff under 6.0 Let's be honest. Out of the last 12 monthes, there's been some good games but there's been a LOT of bombs. Why arn't I seeing Reviews that are at least honest about that.

The end problem is this. Instead of spending more money to get named actors or named properties, like movies do (which have also fallen) why don't they spend the money making the game better or tighter, no one wants to play a movie based game if it's just movie scene, gameplay, movie scene, harder gameplay, movie scene, if the gameplay is only "hard" because of crap controls.

Re:nothing new

[wickedj]

I remember the first time I paid $79.99 for a game. It was Seventh Saga from Enix for the SNES. I was such an avid fan of Enix from the Dragon Warrior series that I didn't give a second thought to using my entire years worth of savings for this one game (I was 14 at the time). I was sorely disappointed. It took me almost a year of on and off playing to beat it. The music, graphics, story, etc. were all subpar to horrible. I still have the game today to remind me that price does not determine a good game and even the best developers can produce crap. With that in mind, I expect even with the higher priced games coming, alot of it will indeed be crap. Shiny, highly polished crap, but crap nonetheless. Wait till the games hit the bargain bins or buy used. You'll save a ton of money in the long run.

Fixed costs versus recurring

[xenocide2]

If you develop an AI, it costs less per unit, the more units you make. If you use a bigger RAM chip on a cartridge, it raises the cost of every unit!

Reasoning that better games are more expensive and should therefore be more expensive to purchase is a faulty argument. Games should be priced to maximise profts; PROFIT = SALES x (PRICE - COST OF MANUFACTURE) - FIXED COSTS. The fastest way to grow profit is to grow that first term, either through increased sales, higher prices or lower cost of manufacture. Fixed costs generally pay for themselves in increased sales.

The hard part here is that Price is generally inverse related to Sales. That's basic economics. Cost of manufacture is generally out of the hands of game developers, because there's certain minimums you must provide consumers and standard interfaces you need to comply with. So developers and publishers are basically left with a tradeoff between fixed cost and sales x price. Advertising, awesome new graphics, particle effects, those are all fixed costs.

Re:If anything, games should be cheaper.

[vertinox]

Also, the intrusive rental/DRM systems like Steam are no doubt enhancing revenue by preventing all that piracy they were crying about,

DRM copy protection systems on games do not prevent piracy. It just annoys the people that buy legit copies... Unless they buy the copy and then download the crack.

You MUST be joking.

[nobodyman]

After you factor in the tools like Renderware as well as others, you realize game designers do far less.

Let me guess: you've never created a game, or held a job in the industry, have you? Otherwise you'd recognize the above as patently absurd.

Trust me, designers most certainly do *not* have it easier. Even with middleware tools like renderware & havok, and with design tools like Phototoshop, Maya, and 3ds Max, it's still an unbelievablly work-intensive process to create content for a state-of-the-art title.

For example, consider need for speed vs. gran turismo. Let's suspend the argument of which is a better game (GT kicks ass), and just talk about dev costs. You might have an argument that middleware tools have made it easier on a programmer who is relieved of low-level rendering and physics simulation tasks (though I'd wager that a programmer would disagree), but the amount of work required to create the content (audio, artwork, modeling, level/track design) in Need for Speed for the Xbox 360 exceed GT by an order of magnitude. Newer design tools make artists and designers more productive, but these productivity gains are outstripped by the work required to exploit the capabilities afforded by advances in hardware.

But don't take my word for it. Check out a recent post-mortem from Game Developer magazine (or its Gamasutra site)and compare it to one from 5-10 years back. You'll notice that the development staff (programmers, designes, artists, management) numbers have become huge! Licensing and actor royalties notwithstanding, you're still looking at increased costs.

Is the industry producing crap games? Of course. They produced crap games back then, too. It's just that they cost more to make.