Industry Asks Gamers To Pay More

Last week we mentioned a Guardian post about secondhand games, with some industry commentary that the secondhand market was lowering the innovation expectations of developers. Today, the Gamers With Jobs: Press Pass reacts to the whining of the poor underpaid developers: "The always candid David Jaffe wrote: 'You know what? Why the **** should we even try anymore?' while Epic's CliffyB noted: 'What other entertainment medium that's mass market is at $60 a pop?' Cliffy would seem to have the right of it. The used market for DVDs, or CDs is relatively small. Why? Presumably because getting a five dollar discount on a fifteen dollar DVD is not as enticing as thirty dollars off of a sixty dollar game; when it's only five bucks, the natural desire to buy something perfect and new will, in most cases, outweigh thriftiness. While I certainly sympathize with Mr. Jaffe's frustration on this matter, his concerns are a result of working for an industry which refuses to intelligently adapt to a changing marketplace."

Comments

Habits of casual gamers

[Can]

I'm not a hard-core gamer. Nor is my brother or girlfiend. We all own PS2's. We've never paid more than $30 for a game, and that's for something we're really convinced is going to be worthwhile. Most of the time we wait for it to hit $20. Still, we probably spend as much or more money on games than on movies or CD's.

I know of at least 4 more people off the top of my head who own PS1's or PS2's who only have a handful of games because they're just too expensive. Are all my friends and coworkers cheapskates, or could it be that the industry has been so blinded by the "hardcore" gamers that they've alienated the much larger market of casual gamers due to difficulty levels and prices that are beyond the reach of the casual gamer?

To Jaffe

[lbmouse]

To David Jaffe from game consumers: "With the polished turds your industry has been throwing against the wall lately... You know what? Why the **** should we even buy anymore?"

If you created decent games, we wouldn't mind paying full price and guess what? We'd actually keep them rather than sell them as second hand. Wow! What a novel solution.

Re:Price discrimination

[LehiNephi]

I fall into the "tightwad" category. And it's a wonderful place to be. It means I buy games about a year after they are released, and get to play them with maximum graphical detail with my mainstream graphics card. By the time I buy the game, I have (1) saved money on the game by getting it at a lower cost, (2) saved money by only buying good games, (3) saved money by getting older hardware that doesn't require a leaf blower to cool, and (4) saved time by not playing a game that turns out to be dull.

People may say "you miss all the fun of multiplayer games because by that time, everyone has moved on". Rubbish. There are still plenty of people playing the game online, and by this time, most of the morons have given up and moved on.

I agree that $50 or $60 is way overpriced, particularly when you're buying the latest model year of a sports game. The problem is this: price is determined by the market. Games cost $50 or $60 simply because there are tons of people who are willing to buy them at that price. While we may moan and complain and threaten to boycott, there are millions of suckers out there who think that it's an acceptable price.

The Death of Innovation

[Fried-Psitalon]

"We'd pay your prices if XX didn't suck." Sadly, that's not really a new statement, and it's by no means restricted to the gaming world. Movies/movie theatres are facing this phenomenon as well, and books/music to a lesser degree. As a general rule, innovation for the last few years has been facing a distinct downtrend. Rather than huge leaps, we've been making small nudges forward at refining what we have. Part of the reason for this is that sequels are safe, and new material isn't. Yet another version of Battlefield:Earth? Quake 99? NFL Madden 3,000,192? Those are safe, predictable sources of income. The only sequel that truly tanked in the last year or two was Tribes, may it rise again. New titles are risks, and companies don't like those. Ever heard of Savage: The Battle for NewErth? It's a beautiful cross of RTS and FPS... but that game only did "okay" because no one knew about it - no publicity, no risk. Part of this is on the consumer; how many of us buy games we know nothing about except the back of the box? Innovation is dying; partially because companies aren't taking the risk... and partially because the consumers aren't, either.

Not the best way to get the buyers on your side...

[Rob T Firefly]

It takes me back the the early 1990s when used music CDs were a controversy, with Garth Brooks giving interviews on how it was killing his industry. A local indy music shop began using that to market its used CD section.. "Come on down and piss off Garth Brooks!" It was a smashing success, and I think they may still have the sign up somewhere.