Slashdot Mirror
Can $60 Games Survive?
donniebaseball23 writes "Game budgets continue to rise with each successive console generation, and with the Wii U launching later this year, the industry is on the cusp of yet another costly transition. Publishers have been regularly charging $60 for games this generation, but that model simply cannot survive, Nexon America CEO Daniel Kim said in an interview. 'I think at some point the console makers have to make a decision about how closed or open they're going to be to the different models that are going to be emerging,' Kim remarked. 'Today it's free-to-play, and I'm convinced that that one is going to continue to flourish and expand into other genres and other categories, but there may be something else completely and entirely different that comes out that again changes the industry.' He cautioned, 'If your mind is just set on keeping the current model of buy a game for $60, play for 40 hours, buy another game for $60, play for 40 hours, that model I think is eventually going to change. It's going to have to change.'"
I don't care, I'm still buying Heart of the Swarm when it comes out...!
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
$60 Games? I'd LOVE to see the price drop to $60 games. Most new PC Titles in Australia debut at between $89 and $99. The collectors edition of .. .Dragon Age I think it was, was $109.
$60 games ... luxury.
It's not about tripple A games as one might be led to believe by the "buy a game for $60, play for 40 hours" blurb, Nexxon is about what economists would call CCC rated games, or as gamers would call it, iOS/facebook trash etc.
Here's your game, for just 10 bucks. Plus 5 bucks for the equipment that you need in level 2. Plus 7.99 for the multiplayer addon (i.e. what you actually bought the game for). For just 3 bucks a pop you get new maps. Not happy with our controller layout? For just 5 bucks you can now create your own AND store it online on our server for just 3 bucks a month. Oh, talking about it, to play online of course you have to pay 10 bucks a month to play on our secure and dedicated servers... for as long as we run them only, of course. Which will be about a year, when the 2013 edition comes out. But hey, it's only going to cost 10 bucks!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
predicting the end of the $40 computer game.
people say we are logical, and we have science, and we no longer rely on witch doctors and shamanism and we dont believe in magic.
but pundits are our shamans, and we throw bones trying to predict these things that are not only unpredictable, but dont really matter that much, but we love to do it.
something about the mysticism is there in all of us , and which part of it is good, and which is bad?
the really interesting moments when you realize you were wrong, and you were wrong for wrong reasons.
I stopped buying them years ago!
Yeah, you can buy it for $60, but there's a chunk of pretty critical zero day DLC. Heck, Super Street Fighter II was $70 in 1995, and Phantasy Star was $80 in '84. But then again those were both commercial failures in the States...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I personally abhor multiplayer games, I need to be able to pause and be entertained when my schedule allows. I don't think being nickle and dimed to play a single player game is going to be an easy pill to swallow, look at all the anger aimed at DLC and Bioware right now for Mass Effect 3's release day DLC
from as high as $2.50 a gig to lowes of $10 for 50 gigs
Nexon is publishing MMOs, which doesn't have the 60$ business model; in fact, they are in the free-to-play model (free to play but buy your upgrades for the full experience).
Knowing that the pc market now represent ~5-10% of the gaming market compared to its glory days in the 90s, saying that "PC gaming has huge room to grow" equivalent of saying that "the potential at Wall Street is enormous"... after a recession.
Exchange $60 games for free crap? No thank you. I like my AAA titles as they are.
I expect the market to correct the model of $5 DLC for one hour of play to occur before $60 for 40 hours of play. DLC, hats, and paid content with regards to Free-To-Play will do well in the market....but there is a lot to be said for a level playing field and flat initial cost for people that play in even casual/competitive games. Knowing another player can drop $20 and get a BFG-2000 that insta-nukes his opponents may encourage griefing kiddies to play...but eventually drives away the core market.
That being said, it Riot Games has done an excellent job with balancing Free-To-Play competitive gaming with League of Legends.
Where I live games cost $80 to $120
And i'll find out if they are good by pirating them first.
(there hasnt been many good ones in the last few years)
Moral arguments aside i've just been shit out of luck way too many times now.
I have learned you can't trust reviews or any large game company.
I have adopted a corporate attitude about it all. I'm gonna pirate and theres fuck all anyone can do about it until they actually stop me.
This just in: Free 2 Play Publisher Says $60 Games Doomed.
Meanwhile In other news this evening, RJ Reynolds has a new study out proving that smoking is good for you and makes you look cooler.
Are you kidding? There are men out there who will pay $200 if a woman will just get naked and call him daddy for an hour. Anyone who thinks gamers won't pay $1.50/hour for a game is crazy. Hell, I pumped more than 6 quarters an hour into arcade games once a week when I was a kid, and that's back when you'd actually pick up a quarter in the street if you found one.
Games having been keeping up with inflation if you assume the same time goes into producing a game, but just using better technologies. Good games can be worth 60. The only thing I see ending is bad games being able to charge as much as they used to now that there is more competition thanks to Steam, X-Box Live Arcade and the like.
But then look at TF2. Valve has admitted that game hit a ceiling in profitability, and making it F2P has turned it into a real money maker. So that might be the future. Cheap game, sell hats for profit.
by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
Why does it have to change?
Oh right. The cloud.
... games are typically $100 or even $110. I see ME3 for PC is going for just $88 ... a bargain :-/ What's that in US currency .... $93. Yeah.
Bitter and proud of it.
It's pretty simple. When publishers stop making fixed-price games, I stop buying their products. I won't pay a subscription fee for games I play casually (read, all games), and if you think I am going to accept yet another advertising Trojan into my house, think again.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Not if they put out the content WoW has been putting out.
Daniel Kim.. what fucking world do you live in where $60 games deliver 40 hour experiences and then you can just go get another new game that does the same?
I mean, my first game was an RPG. My favorite genre is still RPG. So I'm well aware that they can. But I'm not under some illusion that such games dominate the market.. Batman, Assassin's Creed. They're like 20 hour experiences if I drag my ass a little.
when 4 hour games cost 50 bucks?
I have no problem with $60 games or even DLC. The problem I have is $60 games with zero day DLC (like Mass Effect 3). It's obvious that many developers are starting to use it to discreetly jack up the price of the core game. Then to add insult to injury, they claim it was never intended to be part of the core game despite the files already being physically on the disk.
If developers were just honest, I wouldn't have much of a problem with the practice. Instead, they're trying to play us for idiots.
60$ wasn't an issue years ago when I knew that this would give me the full game and support for many years with some games. Then a year or two later, you could buy an expansion pack that added valuable content. These days, you buy a 60$ game where you get an "advertisement" in-game to buy a DLC if you want to do a certain quest(Dragon Age). Then you can expect all sorts of cheap DLC instead of worthy content. Our games have become digital stores for digital crap that doesn't exist, and it's perfectly fine on a free to play model, but not when you pay 60$ or more.
Don't forget inflation when complaining about game prices.
$60 in 2010 adjusted using the unskilled wage as an index via MeasuringWorth.com:
2005: $55.30
2000: $48.60
1995: $41.00
1990: $35.30
1985: $30.40
The CPI-based results are within $1-2 of this, if you're curious. I tried to dig up some old game prices for comparison, but this information seems hard to find. Anyone know a good source?
Visit the
When I stopped buying video games, the average game took me about 60-80 hours to finish.
My friends now regularly finish games in as little 12-15 hours.
So where I paid $40 for my games, about $0.50/hour play time at best, my friends are now paying about $2-4/hour, and that's not even ten years later.
What's unsustainable is the presumption that gamers have infinitely deep pockets, or that people don't give damn about the value for their dollar if the game is "good enough." Sooner or later, things are going to crash. And the popularity of used and "old" games in the $20 bins is starting to prove that point, as are the number of $10-20 internet games.
Remember, the industry is now competing with "App" games that sell for $1-5 each. Sure "Angry Birds" doesn't have the visceral glory of the console games, but it's fun to the people who play it and it's not costing them an arm and a leg. Expect more of the same, or a major crash in the whole gaming industry.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
In the past I have been less than perfect about paying for the PC games I play, mostly because $50 and even $60 games seem overpriced for what they are. But I would definitely pay a reasonable price (
Does anyone have any suggestions or links to a sort of "Gamespot of Indie Games"? I don't even know where to start.
Q: Can $2.5M cars survive?
A: Of course, but you better be damn sure that it is of exceptional quality, and can accelerate 0-60 in 2.5 seconds.
Wasn't it the BFG-9000? a BFG-2000 sounds whimpy in comparison.
Though I'm a PC gamer - I own about 6 console games and usually just rent them...
Since I don't have enough time to play games like I used to and don't read magazines and so on I'm fine with buying the "game of the year" things for the games that kept their "good game" vibe long after the hype died. Heck I usually wait intil the game of year set with all the DLC has been out long enough to be half price.
But free to play ones stay free - with "micro" payments to make them actually fun often being required (especially for people who don't want to sink stupid amounts of time into them) rather than dropping to 25% of the release price.
I sure wish I could buy good, expansive, expensive RPGs for the Ipad and/or Iphone. Yes, there are a couple. But I'd pay $60 without blinking for an Ultima VII or a KOTOR or even a Fire Emblem. And I'm referring to quality and scale, not those names, although I'd sure buy a full-price port of any of the above.
Ever since the early 90's where Australia's exchange rate was approximately 50c per 1USD, we have been paying $90-$100 per game for anything and up until recently (past 5 years) some of those costs have reached $120AUD for those "blockbuster" AAA games.
Now, at this point I will have to explain that, sure it was fair enough for US-based game producers to charge us $90AUD simply because it would work out to ~$45USD. For those who are unaware, Australia's exchange rate is currently sitting at ~$1.05USD which is above parody for us and we are STILL paying that same $90 which was brought upon us back in the early 90's. So US-based game developers have been raking it in from us for the past 10 years as our $AUD continually increased.
Does this mean, that if these US companies are going to be charging extra per game, that here in Australia, we will also notice the effects and see our games reach the $130-$160AUD mark just because these companies think they can milk us for more?
If such a move was taken by these companies, I can add a guarantee that the piracy rate of all games will go up, because people will refuse to pay these prices for games which are continually getting worse from your major publishers.
Indie devs are where the real gaming is these days anyway, by gamers for gamers and without having to sell your house in order to afford them.
There will still be 60 dollar games.
I'm a Valve fan, I'll buy any Valve game as soon as it comes out, without waiting for discounts.
However, I'll wait for Bioshock Infinite (I think, it still looks really awesome & I might splurge) & I'm currently waiting for Skyrim to hit the 20 dollar mark.
Is this for real? I remember paying $50+ for NES games when they were new. Considering a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread costs twice what it did then, I can't help but scoff at this topic... yeah, $60 games will survive just fine in a world where a drink at a bar is $10 and tickets, drinks and popcorn to a movie (for 2) is well over $30.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I think the question ought to be, "Should $60 games survive?"
You are welcome on my lawn.
with this
is less about the (high) cost than it is about the small amount of playing hours that that high cost provides... should be more like 100-150+ hrs for a $60 (at initial launch) game... and no farkin' 'downloadable' content (free OR $$) needed to get there, either.
I buy and play games because they are fun! What is killing the $60 games it's that they are not worth $60. They are the same game as the last one with better graphics more DRM and the same glitches. When you are playing a multiplayer game and can't kill your opponent when you sneak up behind them and empty all your rounds into their backs. They turn around and with one bullet you are dead. It's not a cheat it's a poor engine design because I've been at both ends of the experience.
And for the love of god I know it's EA DICE FROSTBITE or whatever company designed the game. Stop wasting my time with endless start up ads then proceed to load the game while I'm looking a a screen which is flashing LOADING..... I only have about one hour at a time to play. I have to earn a living in order to pay the $60 or more for the game so I don't have much time.
Get rid of DRM.
I bought a 300Gig HD because it made sense to load the games so I wouldn't have to wait for the slow DVD/BR.
I need to be able to sell the game since I can't return it if I don't like it or wish to purchase a new one.
I don't need any additional warning messages. They are already in the booklet that came with the game.
So basically the solution is: Fix the bugs. Don't waste my time. Let me play by getting out of my way. Get rid of DRM. I will gladly pay $60.
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
Games are drastically overpriced at $60. There is not a single other form of popular media, sans original art printings perhaps, that are at that level; not movie tickets, not albums, not movies, not books. And, as there is no shortage of games worth my time to choose from, I have been happy to wait for sales; I haven't paid more than $10 for a game in years.
The average casual game is priced from $1-$10 on iOS or Android, with most falling on the low end of that. One could say that those games are less evolved, or less advanced, than their console/PC equivalents, and that may be true to a point. But with the average timespan of modern games continually decreasing (seeing a AAA game with an average campaign of under 10 hours is quite common), and the only real differences becoming the higher end graphics and control scheme, that justification is rapidly losing its credibility.
If indie and casual developers can make a profit creating a game on a sub-$million budget and a retail cost of $1-10, then so can the big names. I've yet to see more than a handful of "serious" games come out over the past few years that justified its eight figure budget (or more). And when you factor in the increasing reliance on DLC to nickel-and-dime the customer for content that used to be included in the retail copy, I think more and more gamers will start to see that paying $60 for a game that offers more or less the same end experience as the $10 games simply doesn't make sense.
Publishers and developers will simply have to adapt to that; otherwise, just as the gaming market has crashed before (read: Atari), it will crash again. And no amount of hand-wringing or ranting from the big names is going to change that.
As someone who is making a game myself I can say that the money is on mobile now. There are millions of people with what are essentially portable game devices, looking for something to kill time while commuting or waiting in lines. $60 is unrealistic, but $5 have the potential to get you thousands of purchases per month if you have something decent. This is particularly good for indi developers like myself, since capital investment is small in comparison to consoles, and there is already a whole cheap infrastructure in place to sell your game.
I doubt their will ever be an end to the epic expensive games, like Skyrim, but the bar will be high enough that's there just going to be fewer and fewer of them. With most game developers settling for a lower price point.
I'm sort of surprised by the comments on here. I'm approaching 30, so I grew up buying games in the 'good old days' when they were ~$20-35. But if you account for inflation, is $60 really that unreasonable? I mean, I'm not mindblowingly rich, and I am pretty stingy with my money as far as just going out and dropping a 50 bill on something - but $60 for a really good game seems pretty ok. Most of the time, the $59.95 titles will have preorder sales or whatever for $45-50, and if you can wait a couple months, you can usually score top tier games for $39.95.
I'm pretty OK with paying that amount of money for good games - they usually last more than 4-6 movies lengths of entertainment, so that seems par for course as far as entertainment goes. Of course, I never spend my money on bad games - I usually find a way to errr, preview them before committing - so maybe my game buying experience is different than that of the average consumer.
Of course they can survive when the alternative is buying a $1-10 game that you don't even know will be there in the future. What are the chances that the games I download via the Xbox live service will be available to me when I upgrade to the Xbox 3 (or whatever it will be called)? What are the chances that it will be seamless and free (as in, I can continue to play both consoles with the games on them without having to "transfer" them between the two consoles because if the first Xbox is any indication there will be various glitches that will make not all 360 games work on the Xbox 3). What are the chances that they will still be even /in/ the shop? Various games have been removed from current-gen consoles due to licensing conflicts, etc. While most of the time it allows you to re-download the games if they got deleted somehow, such a policy makes it hard for late adopters to get gems that are downloadable.
My $60 (or realistically $20-30) Xbox disks will continue to play no problem for quite a while, just like my ~30 year old NES.
There are so many stupidities with the current downloadable game market to make me unlikely to spend some serious cash on them. Of course it isn't enough to stop me spending a buck or two here and there for a few downloadable only gems, but I'm not going to be spending the cash I do on disks.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
... at the beginning of the PS2/Xbox1/Gamecube era. Developers even in the late 90's in the late PS1 era with the advent of 3D hardware accelerators were saying the same thing and Interplay went bellyup because it didn't diversify and their developers went their own way or got acquired by other publishers. The $60 (rather $70-80 /w dlc) game is still here.
Gamefly is not the cat's meow, but I'd rather pay them and cycle through games than pay $60 for something I play for a couple of hours before deciding I hate it.
Of course, this just means the next step publishers will do is rent the game only. Too bad, that will be the end of my console days.
Anything is possible given time and money.
First person shooters will go extinct! Internet Explorer will dominate browser choice! Zombie Steve Jobs will be reinstated as Apple CEO!
Do I get in the news yet, or are my inane and utterly stupid statements about something I don't actually know about not outrageous enough yet?
You might think so, but that often isn't the case. In AU, nearly 2.5 years after release, COD: Modern Warfare 2 still costs $80! Even if you manage to buy during a rare 30%-off special, that's still more than it ever cost in the US, even allowing for our 10% GST or stronger dollar.
And it's not just popular games either, nor is Steam the only offender. Xbox Live is usually worse, and there are 3 year old games on retail shelves that cost the full RRP of $109. Don't even get me started on iTunes music. Importing (from the UK, usually) is cheaper, but it's ludicrous that a boxed product can be manufactured then shipped all the way to AU via the UK and still be half the price of a simple download.
While customers are flocking to import sites, local retailers are going out of business, and distributors just shrug and say, "It's the publisher's decision" (while collecting their "suggested" cut). The publishers, naturally, aren't commenting.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
I paid full price for Skyrim. I will pay full price for the eventual expansions. I will pay full price for any future Elder Scrolls games. Or Fallout games for that matter.
Bethesda, as far as I'm concerned, can take all my money.
Out of the entire gaming industry, they're the only company I can say that about.
So, this has been a long-winded answer of: No.
Nexon is a company which gives many of its games away for free only to ream idiot players who can't do math over and over in a cash shop, where they end up paying several times more for their "free" game than they would on a traditional model. Of course the CEO of their US division is going to try to promote their scammy business model.
Despite the bugs, none of Nexon's titles comes close to Skyrim (the PC version), which was absolutely one of the best $60 I've ever spent (despite the bugs). And Skyrim is arguably not even the best Elder Scrolls game. Some games are very much worth the $60.
While there is certainly overlap, Angry Birds is not really even in the same market as the AAA titles.
...so can $60 games.
Starcraft II was about 80$, I've been playing it since two summers ago... must be pennies an hour or something. Mariokart Wii was about 60$, can play that whenever I want, there's no fixed hours of entertainment for games like that. When multiplayer is involved, the cost of the game is almost totally unimportant compared to how badly you want to play it. Of course, they need to price the game so that you don't cringe when you see the price, but anything below that and it's fair game, pun intended.
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
The only time they charge more than $50 for a Wii game is when an accessory is packed in with it.
Of course, that's about my price point for console games in general regardless; I wait for those $60 games to become $50 games before I shell out money for them.
With 60USD games being "the norm" these days, a lot of the games tend to not be worth the price that these greedy publishers are asking for. Let's look at some of the recent titles that came out:
Mass Effect 3 -- focused on single player with incentives on replay value due to outcome of characters being based on your past decisions.
Skyrim -- focused on single player, with replay value stemming from modifications and character rerolls.
Modern Warfare 3 -- focused on single and multi-player, with majority of replay value being on multi-player and future add-ons
Battlefield 3 -- focused on single and multi-player, with majority of replay value being on multi-player and future add-ons
Depending on the type of player you are, you can either be one of the first bunches of people who buy the game as it comes out or you can be the ones who wait 'till all of the add-ons and DRC (downloadable rip-off content) are collected into a "game of the year" package. As I am a multi-player gamer associated with a clan, I ended up being one of the first bunches who snagged Battlefield 3 early. I guess you could say that I'm sorta obligated (to myself) to snag a game early, despite the initial price offering. But when I view single-player games... like Mass Effect 3, Skyrim, or any other big single-player games out there, I think the price should not be tagged at $60 a pop, especially if the publisher and developer already has plans on delivering future contents. These days the term "DLC" is so blurred and screwed up that I often see it as an excuse for them to sell an incomplete game. I personally do not want an incomplete game. "Zero-day DLC" only implies that the game was incomplete to start with. And they should not be charging US$60 a pop for an incomplete game.
In the multi-player realm, things can be different... MMO and multi-player FPS tend to have people who will snag the game on the first day, since they're more than likely are either fans or are with clans/guilds that want to start as soon as possible. Prices on these can be set high (or low). Still, $60 is pricey as it is.
If I'm going to play a single-player game, I'd rather skip the initial price offering and wait it out. I already have tagged Batman Arkham City and Saints Row The Third as games that I will get later on and hopefully be collected into a Game of the Year package. You can't beat gettin' a good game at a fraction of its original release price.
~ Old Warriors Society
Speaking as an Australian I would love to pay only $60 for a AAA title. WHY is it that in this day and age with pretty much 1:1 parity with the US dollar, am I being asked for $85-110 for a new release. WTF is WITH that?
-Steve http://www.stevennicholson.com
It's a free to play game with upgrades attainable faster if you choose to pay. I love the game, have played it a lot and have spent more $$ over time than I'd have paid for a one-off $60 fee. In fact, I would have never played it if it cost $60 up front, and I'm sure there are many other games out there that I would enjoy but never even tried because the upfront I-don't-even-know-if-I-like-this-game-yet fee is too steep. The Free to Play initially approach is a very strong business model when done right.
Who has both that kind of money and that kind of time these days? I don't know about you, but most of the blockbusters I bought I didn't even finish. Some, like Final Fantasy XIII, not even properly started. Just play until the game obviously sucks, and put it on the shelf forever. Out of the whole last console generation there are exactly two "big" games that ever had replay value for me: 1) Obvion 2) Civ 4. Out of the rest... Drake? Pheh, linear. Burnout? Another racing game, you have got to be kidding. Madden? Please, I have a brain. Red dead? Nice graphics and voice acting, but I am not putting up with that lame save system, sorry. In truth I got a lot more play value out of some $10 games: Flower was different, still gets played from time to time, or at least demoed. Fat princess.... hey, where's the sequel??? Mushroom wars... just great. Age of Booty, highly entertaining.
The big disappointment for me was Skyrim. Basically, the only AAA title I bought in the last year. Big? Yes. Shiny? You bet. Great finishing moves? Yup. Fun? Uh... ok, let's just say I'm not on the edge of my seat waiting for Elder Scrolls 6. Nor the PS4, the XBox 1280, or whatever. I'll just take a pass on "big game" from now on I think, unless something major changes. Definitely not worth $60 to spend a few hours being unwhelmed to the point of not bothering to finish yet another samey-same epic on rails.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
that is just the base cost, then they sell you the rest as dlc. it's pretty pathetic that they sell these map packs and such, when they used to be a freebie for pc gamers. when consoles started getting the ability to download content, it all changed. now, even pc gamers are having to pay for this garbage. how many console games are now rushed out with more bugs, that would've been previously unacceptable, now that they just patch them? pc games are less moddable than before, too. great path this industry is going down.
...
$60 USD = $73 NZD. Given that we pay $110 here for new games, I would kill for $60 USD games.
(4) Many of the really long games are that way because of padding. They have a lot of repetitive shit you can (or have to) do that draw it out. Fine, but not necessarily that entertaining. Like FF5 or FF7 could claim probably over a 100 hours of game play... Because you could grind the fuck out of stuff. Getting all your jobs up to master or getting a couple sets of master materia took a lot of serious grinding. That is not the same quality of entertainment as new cool stuff in a game. Shorter and higher quality entertainment has something to be said for it. If you just want most hours of least dollars there are some serious grind fests out there. Not for me thanks.
For the BFG-9000 you gotta fork over $90
thinking bout morrowind, you wondr if stargate (tm) could have been the next doom ][ (tm) but the whole thing was niggled with bs snakes and lawyers or fibbers and jackasses from the beginning to final vaporware at steam (tm) in the end. heh heh heh fuck me, I don't even get a binary I can put in my box offline. It makes me HATE stargate, although I can't fully hate Bethesda, cause morrowind rocks.
And you mf's with the app store attitude? Windows Live, App Store, inc. LOL. I will never buy your toys. Pay as you go? Are you kidding? You are lucky I ever think about buying a game on a CD, and if I can't cunt-root my own god damn server piss off. The only APP I can think of that I would pay for is a tsunami / earthquake / flood / radiation warning app - that's only because NONE EXIST. That way I don't have to get fucking brainwashed by the media between my natural and unnatural disasters.
someone go download qnx 650 HEAD and find out what the fuk is wrong with it.
But I'm going to have to wait a bit for it to be released...
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
Be a discerning customer. ...and I make sure they are games I will play the shit out of. If it is not a game that I will be playing for weeks on end (i.e. not worth the investment), I just don't buy it in the first place.
I have no problem at all with $60 games and I make less than most of you.
Try not buying every damn game under the sun. Try demos first when possible, try playing at a friends before you buy, etc.. If game/studio focuses on online mp and the single-player campaign is short, play through the single-player campaigns multiple times. Also, you don't have to buy every game in a series. For instance, with the COD series, I didn't buy WaW or Black Ops because IMO they suck.
I buy only a few games per yr
4000-6000 JPY is the normal price you pay for a standard edition game.
7000 - 12000 JPY is what you pay for collector's edition with bonuses and other things.
Then I took an arrow to the knee.
Dear game industry,
I don't care about the polygon level or whatever the latest techie circle jerk effects your man-shooter game engine can pump out. If you need to raise the price level because of graphics whoring, you're on the wrong track. A much more modest investment in innovative game ideas, better gameplay systems, AI, and their ilk will reap bigger rewards for you. If you continue to invest solely in graphics and in-game cutscenes (because your art directors have film-envy), you do so to your folly. The indie game scene is getting bigger and for good reason -- it's a rare place where new ideas can be played, not just a linear, scripted high-poly cinematic trash. Oh sure, your man-shooters and brain-dead action-RPGs will continue to pull in big numbers, but it's unsustainable as a long-term strategy.
I think the models depend a lot on what is being offered. Some games cope well with the $60 one time fee, where as other need it to survive. f2p works in favor for a game like League of Legends because it's largely focused around small units which can be easily added to the game, they then charge for those units (heroes). People will continue playing the game regardless because the game play is generally self-perpetuating. People play for some other goal besides beating the game and being done with it.
Where as a game like Bulletstorm is largely focused around a one time play through unless you're a die hard. It doesn't take much time, but it was still priced at $60 for launch. People wont return to the game, even if there is DLC because the game doesn't have a model that would cater to return customers. Even if it was f2p, people wouldn't play it because it's not designed to be played that way.
Then yet again you have a game like Skyrim, which is a bargain for $60 for the amount of time you can get out of the game. Not just that, but a lot of casual users will STILL be playing the game when DLC comes out because it's really just that long. Even after you beat the main storyline, you can continue on playing the game and the game itself once again motivates people to play it for some other reason then the carrot-on-a-stick approach. The lore, storyline, quests, setting, and universe itself are that well thought out that it encourages people to keep playing and keep buying.
Of course Skyrim couldn't go f2p. If it was f2p, people wouldn't buy it because they would literally hack apart the game world to fit it into that specific business model and that's what some companies are trying to do. Some companies are trying so hard to fit games into a certain business model that it literally tears the game apart because the game wasn't designed around it or they don't know how to implement it in a way that makes it fair to all that play. Take for instance WoWs 'f2p' accounts, that are essentially trial accounts that never expire. They have absolutely no use to anyone other then allowing Blizzard to slap the 'f2p' moniker on their game.
This sort of thing just goes to show you that 'me toos' never end up in the lead. They're always chasing after scraps left by those leading the way.
Some games are worth that much, or even more to a dedicated fan base. Your Bioware or GTA games, for example, have tons of writing and voiceover work put into them.
But most games aren't that good, or have that much replayability.
$60 for 8 to 12 hours of entertainment? *cough* ripoff *cough*
Don't mention Angry Birds, it might sell for a lot less but if people were capable of rational thought they would see that these types of games were once available for free if coded in flash. AB is as overpriced as selling a BASIC (The programming language) snakes game for the windows platform for a dime (code used to come free with Windows).
A 1 euro McD burger might be cheaper then a 10 euro three star dinner but one of them is overpriced and the other isn't.
What do you GET for that 60 dollar? A FPS with predictable story line that can be finished in a couple of hours, or weeks of playing time in a sprawling universe where there is always more to discover?
In MMO's a lot of kiddies (safe to assume the same who get phone subscriptions that end up bankrupting them because they don't understand math) clamor for free to play, then you do the math and notice that F2P really means, PAY LOTS AND LOTS MORE but hide it in small segments so people never quite notice just how much you spent and oops your account always has unspent points left over at the end because the concept of spare change has gone from the world so you now buy the game NOT for exactly 60 dollars but for 120 dollars and you pay with 2 100 dollar notes but the company keeps the change.
But you never buy in the shop?
Then you basically want other gamers to pay for your game or think that games are free to develop and run, you are silly, go and play in traffic. It is FREE!
The biggest problem with the console market is that to many game developers are fishing in the same shallow and money deprived pool. I am an old gamer, I got money to burn but fewer and fewer titles are aimed at me. It has been remarked many times before but just how many military FPS can there be before they start to cannibalize each others sales? This is what hurt the Wii, it didn't have any FPS but instead it aimed it at one segment of the market and aimed a LOT of games at this segment who buy only 1 game with their console and play it casually for the lifetime of the console. Oops! It is like trying to make your money with a hamburger joint where you get the first free and make the money on the 2nd with the lucrative anorexic market.
The game industry is incredibly immature. If game producers make cars, there would be one type of car and it would be a ricer. And fuck everyone else. And kiddies would shout that cars need to be free and car makers should make their money from parts they wouldn't buy.
The game industry in incredible immature but that is okay because so are the majority of their audience.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I'm still waiting to find a old school, console quality "Free-to-play" game that is A) Even worth my time because it isn't terrible, and B) Doesn't cost over 100-200+ To be able to have access to the entire game.
In case people haven't noticed, free to play games (im not talking about angry birds and all your terrible facebook/tablet games. I mean Real games, Skyrim, Final fantasy, Gears if war if that was your thing, etc.) Are all just stripped down, buggy versions of full games, that you have to pay to unlock. Caveat is, that it costs more to unlock all the crap in a free game than it does to pay the full price for a classic game.
I think the initial statement of '$60 to expensive' is to simple.
To expensive for what?
For a standalone game that offers ~40 hours of entertainment? I think not.
Even a multiplayer game that sounds quite reasonable, as long as there are no monthly costs.
If I have to pay monthly, then I do not want to have to buy a box in advance.
What also might be indicated is that the days of trying to leech your clients for all they have are coming to a rapid end, even more so with Free2Play titles.
While WoW was massively popular and did earn the people a lot of money, it was like earning money off of Online Poker. Get the people hooked (emotionally) and then try to bleed them for all they have.
I see the same problem with Free2Play titles.
Contrary to that I go back to games like GuildWars (made by old Blizzard people) who did not try to leech their customers. You had to pay the full price for the boxed game (a nice box btw!) and then could play for free with ALL benefits. You did not even need the box because you only needed a small start-client you could download from the GW-page. i.e. no scratched DVDs.
While the addons and some other additions (more char slots) did cost extra, you were not missing out on the game just because you did not shell out money.
The devs (remember they were from Blizzard and created Diablo) knew that you did not need the subscription model to finance the game. So they did that and were quite profitable in a market dominated by WoW.
So I'd happily shell out $60 bucks for GuildWars2 because I know that that will be the last purchase I need to make to enjoy the game (at least from the game's point of view, HW purchases not included).
No thank you. I don't have time to grind through the basic stuff such as your 2nd power upgrade or item or pay up for the cheater (oops whats what they call it, premium?) item.
I'd rather pay $60 and have everything relatively accessible to the experience adopted (action, adventure, rts, platform,etc) and not present me the choice of either having to sit the whole day grinding through it or cough up cash in micro transactions that would go way way over $60 in order to have a pleasent non-grinding, repetitive and boring (supposedly) entertaining experience.
That business of trying to bait me will only lead your company to a lost sale.
...Minecraft. Yeah, Minecraft. What was it, like $15?
Anyhow, gotta go! Zombie's at the door. They've become such rude neigbors since the last update.
Why? Steam only.
And it's not that I won't pirate, but that I really cannot be arsed downloading a pirate copy of any of the steam games. Which is ALSO why I won't buy the games and get a "no Steam" crack, which would likely be much easier.
Deus Ex: Gone. Not getting part 3.
Diablo 3? Gone. Not steam, but exactly the same thing under a different branding.
So now I find that I have much more money coming in than leaving and I'm seriously considering going part-time. Instead of cramming entertainment into the gaps left after work and survival, I'll have plenty of spare time.
PS does ANYONE know why Fluffers For Steam (tm) ALL act like that someone else choosing NOT to use Steam (for any, including no, reason) is going to remove Steam from their choices?
Only if they start offering the same amount of content and replayability that games from 1990-2000 offered. Lately new games are about a one shot, hours long experience that you won't soon replay. Example: Homefront. It was a great game, all that evening. I was glad I didn't pay $60 for such a short (~5 hours) experience; the $7.50 I paid on a Steam sale felt more appropriate. I think the maximum that game would've been worth is about $20.
Studios need to quit wasting so much money on gimmicks like the latest graphics, fully voiced content, and other shinies, and focus more on the meat of their games' mechanics. Then they won't feel pressured to charge $60 to try and make a profit.
When a game is as good as Skyrim, I'll gladly pay $60 for it. In fact I bought two copies, one for PS3 and one for PC.
I spent $54.99 for "Double Dragon" for NES back in the mid-80s. $53.99 for "Super Mario Brothers 3", same console, a couple years later. A $50-60 price range isn't anything new for brand new material. I agree it's ridiculous, particularly when you can get almost as much enjoyment from a smaller-scale $5-10 mobile game.
I'm glad we have games like Skyrim, and those sorts of big titles feel justified at the $40-50 price mark. But it's nothing new.
This guy is clueless, read every gaming sites, gamers HATE the free to play model, it won't last long. AAA Games are here to stay.
Why does this model need to change? While I understand there are developers that close shop every year because they can't sell enough copies of their games to keep up with rising production costs, there are still many developers selling millions of games per year. While other successful models are emerging, I don't think it necessitates the death of an established model that is still making money for publishers.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
I have a formula I use. 1$ for each hour of enjoyment.
In order for a game to be worth the price, I need to get at least 1 hour of enjoyment for each dollar I spend on it, and $60 is just too much. I usually get about 40 hours of enjoyment out of a game, sometimes 50, but that is only if the game is not full of bugs when I get it. If I have to give away a bunch of personal information just to download a patch for something that should have worked right in the first place, then that value is even lower.
Since prices have started going up, My purchases have gone way down. I also raised the bar on what I expect, but companies are falling WAY short.
1. I expect the game to be no more than $50
2. I expect to not find bugs within 5 minutes of installing it. If I find them that quickly, then as far as I am concerned, they released it that way intentionally, which is selling a fraud. They did so you will have to give them all kinds of personal information (worth about $3000) in order to download a stupid patch.
3. I expect to be able to use the keyboard, mous, or controller of my choice and not be forced into using a stupid console controller.
4. If its a single player game, then I expect to not be required to be on the Internet to play it.
5. I expect to not have to install some spyware 3rd party interface (Steam) in order to play the game.
6. It's just a game, so I expect to not have to sign away all my rights and first born child just to play it.
Now, many say I don't have to agree to their ways and I can simply not use their product. That is exactly what I have decided to do. I don't install many games, and I have switched all my other computers to Linux, and utilize a lot of free games.
The next and likely last game I purchase will be Diablo III, only because I got so much enjoyment from the first two that came out. Otherwise I wouldn't even think about it.
Pay attention gaming industry. You can't cry about everything because you are doing it to yourselves. The answers are listed.
I'm surprised no is commenting on Nexon (if they are, it's below my filter). They are one of the greediest companies in the industry. Their business model isn't just "free-to-play", it's "pay-to-win".
Let's use MapleStory for an example:
On top of all of this they are one of the worst customer support companies in gaming. Opening a ticket asking for help will take two weeks or more to get an answer, and virtually every answer is "we can't (or won't) help you."
I've always bought mostly used older games for my younger kids. Now of course they put single-use DLC in just about every game that enables a major portion of the game like online play or useful characters or portions of the game content.
So you have to spend $5-10 to get the DLC code, which just about makes up the difference in the cost of the new and used games. Which I know was the obvious intent, but here is the unintended consequence portion of the program.
If I buy a game with one-time DLC, I cant sell it for as much used as I could before they did that. So as far as I'm concerned the game brand new is worth less to me because its residual value is going to be worse. I also cant just go and install the game on some other console I own with a different xbox live ID.
Similarly, I wont pay as much for used games and I'd expect their prices to drift down a little.
In my instance, this attempted killing of the cheaper used games market isnt going to produce an "Awww, you got me. I'll just pony up $60 for a new game". Its going to produce me paying less for used games and either buying the codes or culturing the kids to play 90% of the game they have access to and moving on. Or we'll only buy 3-4 year old games that have dropped in price.
At the end of the day, if I'm left with no other options I'll just pirate 1/4 or 1/2 of the games to create my own offset. $60 is too much for a video game unless its some epic thing that'll take a month to play and have great replay value.
I suspect there are a whole range of people who can afford gaming due to the used market and will simply buy less or buy nothing.
ought to be enough for anybody...
They will stay fine. just look at other forms of entertainment
the MPAA charges $5 - $8 an hour depending on 2d vs 3d your area . DVDs/Blueray are more expensive but offer more features to technically the content is about the same price point
The RIAA charges $20 an hour for a .99 cent single and $8-9 an hour for a CD.
at those rates a $60 game should net you 8-12 hours at movie rates and 3-8 hours at music rates.
getting 40 hours puts your per hour cost at $1.50
Few of the games i am really looking forward to, I pre-order only when they are available for $45-47 range. Once I am done with it, I sell it off on Glyde or Ebay. The rest of them, I buy on ebay when they are available near $35. That is a more sustainable model for me because I end up spending only $10-15 per game, getting most of my money back by selling the game back and holding on to the few that i really like. I know this does not help the developer but I just cannot afford $60 per game. I do know that if the games where priced more reasonably around $45, I would buy more games immediate after release instead of waiting for the price to go down in the resale market though that might not be true for most people.
As written above in many posts, $60 isn't much. Just compare that with how much you spend watching a 90-minute movie, especially if you bring someone and you're hungry. He also doesn't talk about having pretty much everything unlocked when you buy that game. This is compared with the pay-to-rent microtransactions that cost paying players a lot more than $60 over the course of the game. His business is based on these types of recurring transactions where you pay tens of dollars (sometimes up to $30) for an item you have access to for a limited time (sometimes only for a month).
He also doesn't address how free-to-play games have more hackers and worse support than paid games. This is partly because paid games write their own game engines while free games are based on old (and therefore cheap) game engines. For example, one of Nexon's games is Combat Arms and it's infested with hackers mainly because it's based on a decade-old engine with structural holes that cannot be permanently fixed. Many paid games also have hackers but to a lesser extent and they don't appear as quickly.
Considering the success of BF and MW franchises, which made billions of dollars, I think there's plenty of life left in pay games. The only thing that will kill them is the continued invasiveness of anti-cheat spyware/malware that kill games like Red Alert 3 or C&C 4.
Nexon's games might be "free", but they're also trash. Case in point: Dungeon Fighter Online suffers frequent hacks and break ins, and players complain on the message boards about SIX MONTH WAITING TIMES for tickets involving account hacks and the items stolen are items that were paid for by real money. I'll take my $60 game thank you very much, because that's the only money i'll have to spend on it to enjoy it, and no one's going to break into my account and nick all my stuff. An example of the kind of crap Nexon customer support makes its players deal with:
Greetings,
****Please note that this is an auto-generated message from Nexon Support based on your support ticket. If you are reading this message in your email, please understand that any replies to this email will not be seen by the Nexon Support Staff. If you would like to provide additional information please add a comment to your ticket.****
Unfortunately, we are continuing to experience a high ticket volume at this time. We have not forgotten you and we apologize that a GM has not yet been able to assist you.
Please note our Nexon Support business hours. We answer tickets Monday through Friday, 10am to 6pm Pacific time.
We will do our best to assist you as soon as possible.
Thank you for your continued patience,
Nexon Support Team
Ticket Information:
Ticket #: 19000-1054887
Date Created: 1/18/2012 05:55 PM PDT
Ticket created in January, nothing but weeks of automated emails. A little ironic that a person whose company is this epicly awful at serving their customers is trying to tell others how to operate their business.
I'd love to pay 60$ for a game that's good enough to keep me interested for a full 40 hours. Not a single release the past DECADE has been that good.
buy a game for $60, play for 40 hours
Wow. If I would sum it up all, I do not think I have sat down before TV for that long in past ten years.
As I'm concerned, consoles were dead to me for very long time: I'm simply not the type who sits before TV and swallows everything what's airing. Got spoiled by the internet and by the freedom of choice long time ago. (But I do watch some TV shows on internet on my PC or laptop.)
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Hours of game play divided by cost is not a valid metric for my value. A game is fun or not, irrespective of how many hours of game play I get out of it. Case in point, Portal.
I pay what I want for games, and the game studios don't like that. To people like me, they are overcharging, and then trying to shut down the second-hand market where I can pay what I feel is fair.
I try to buy older games that are still 'new' (not used). If the GameStop guy says they have the same thing used, for less, I politely decline. I want the studios to see what I am willing to pay. Of course, they probably never see the numbers, but they are getting money from my purchase.
If I can't find it old, I'll get it used. If I can't get it used, I'll borrow it from someone at work.
The demand curves they use are not complicated enough to account for these, at least it doesn't appear to be that way. Games kept going up in price, and $60 is the accepted value, not some demand curve based on pre-release anticipation. If they really took that into account, we would see more variation in pricing. Instead, we have the mentality of "If it's less than $60 it's because no one wants it" trap that the companies created by all setting that price as the standard.
I'm sure it's carefully researched, but I would say that places like GameStop put more effort into the pricing curves, based on the highly variable pricing. I found ICO for PS2 after years of looking, and it was $40, just a year ago. For a 10 year old game, and it's currently $70 on Amazon. That is demand pricing, not "Almost everything is $60 because that's the magic number". Yes there are cheaper titles for niche games, but anything targeted to the main gaming audience hits the magic number.
And I would have made the exact post you did in almost any other industry. It's the basics of economic theory, ECON 101. But I don't see it in practice in this industry. Which is why I take every opportunity to set my own prices.
if you are going to love and play a game forever then $60 is a steal. if it's a once through in a week and throw it in a bin then you can go with a rental service like gamefly. i used to think they were full of crap with their rental price but every few months i go through 4 or 5 games because i'm not stingy on a game and researching to make sure i get a good game, so i'm saving a huge amount of money and time. you can also buy games from them which is good because it can be really cheap.
there are options, you dont have to pay $60 for all your xbox360/ps3/wii games.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Forgetting that while last generation games were much cheaper ($40 - $50 for AAA titles), the generations before that were much more expensive. There were $60-$75 N64 games, $60-$75 Genesis games. $60 is not a bad price. Do I even need to bring up Neo Geo AES when that was released?
All that is, is a F2P CEO trying to say how other methods are not working and how his method is working, which means we should go ahead and go to the Nexon website so we can game the way he wants us to.
At least when I pay $60 for a game, I know that if I lose to somebody online, it is not because that person dropped $100 for a set of armor, but because they are more skilled than me.
Yeah, after awhile when trying to play Gunbound, it is near impossible to do even any damage of dudes who are all modded out from spending money on their characters while they can take you out in a single hit or 2.
F2P = whoever drops the most money on that game wins.
$60 = whoever is more skilled wins.
The world is how you make it
Most of you are far bigger gamers than I am, but I think the only over-$20 game I bought was actually used, one of the Katamari games off eBay. It was very close to $20 though (including shipping).
Just wait a while, and the games will come down to $20-ish, new. That at least has been true for PS2 and PS3 games in my experience. Not even all of them were "Greatest Hits" versions, though admittedly most of the games I've gotten have been popular ones (though the Katamari ones are closer to cult classics).
This is the best WoW guide I've seen so far...
http://e9eb2vyrjhxzb4cvrk3dkpcx1f.hop.clickbank.net/ - wow strategy guide
-WoWGuru99
So, in light of all the "consoles are dead" speculation, yes the next generation of game consoles have a tough road ahead if they continue to follow the same trends and habits from the past.
But, we are already seeing examples of how game console companies ARE changing.
I recently bought the PS Vita, and I have downloaded 4 free games so far. There are 3 free games designed to showcase the Augmented Reality features of the PS Vita, and recently Motorstorm came out with a sponsored version of their RC game. So, aside from the "console" purchase and buying Uncharted, I haven't spent a dime and have been enjoying a few weeks of various games, and I spent a hell of a lot less money then the cost of iPad 3.
Also, people keep forgetting that it was Microsoft and Sony that first released the embedded "store" concept on their consoles, before Apple rolled out Apps on iTunes, 3 years later, Wii eventually caught up. The Xbox Live and PSN "stores" offered free and cheap games and allowed a flood of independent game development. Microsoft even offered the ability for hobbyists to release game titles on Xbox LIve. Sony offers a subscription allowing monthly rollouts of free gaming titles and discounted prices. Next gen consoles will most likely embrace this legacy and enhance it based on competition from Apple and Android stores.
Console makers are seeing the trends for free and cheap games on tablets and phones and are adapting. I am sure game prices will drop, but a game company like Big Dog that create the Uncharted series of games invests a HELL of a lot more time, talent and money producing a game then the guys at Rovio. Consider that most Apple games do not have voice talent, limited game depth (sure 40 hours of hack and slash or pull and release != 40 hours of game play with 10 hours of scripted voice acting and cut scenes) and often just ports from console games, I don't see a direct comparison of mobile games to console games.
Yes, $60 is too much and that price will most likely drop, but also to a abhor a reality where all games cost $0.99 and play and feel like a dollar store game. If games like Uncharted "die" in favor of Angry Birds, that will be a sad day for gaming.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Um what planet are you on?
This went on for a few months? This still happens today. It has been going on for years. Online the difference has come together more, because they don't actually usually sell for what is printed on the cover... in a brick and mortar store however you are still paying the 10.99 Canadian over the 6.99 US... which is just a cash grab as the Canada dollar is, and has been at par for some time. Magazines have the same problem though easier to adjust, funny they haven't either... Ticks me off.
You people actually pay $60? I simply wait between 6 months to a year and pick the same game up for $20 or less... Even if I want a new release it's just a matter of waiting and watching prices... I picked up GOW3 for $40 about a month after it came out.
Starcraft + Brood War is 20 dollars now, probably 10 used, and brand new was 40.
No, Starcraft was ~$60 when it was new. Brood War was probably around $30 (but I recall it seeing it higher) when it was new.
That's six campaigns, count them, SIX.
Starcraft one was thirteen years ago, count them. THIRTEEN
Not to mention $60 thirteen years ago is worth more than $60 today
I physically incapable to not stop replying. You comparison is completely disingenuous
One day, i'm going to power up my old console that i've kept lovingly maintained over the years, pop in a game i used to enjoy, and see some warning about not being able to connect to X company's verification server.
I find this absolutely horrible, especially with video games now a near formal art form. Later generations will have one hell of a time trying to see these works, and collectors and retro gamers will be stuck with good, but not exactly representative independent games of the era. I know that I am in no means the majority of consumers, but, damn it, i want the culture that i grew up with to be revisit-able in the future.
It saddens me that the people who can and are making these products a lasting bit of culture are by necessity operating outside the legal system in place. Cracking DRM on media should be a right, not just an option. It should be safe and easy and should not interfere with your ability to enjoy your game. People should not be prosecuted for keeping their media usable.
While I do not approve of piracy wholesale, i do agree that these companies are very much misguided if they consider pirates a market segment they can capture. For me, Piracy does not equal lost revenue, it just equals exposure. Locking legitimate consumers out of a product because of your own paranoia that some guy on the interwebs who would not pay a single penny for your game anyway is now able to download it and enjoy it, breaking your own consumer trust and thus losing someone who would very well pay for your product, however, is.
Good games can not only sell for 60 dollars but can sell for considerably more then that.
Bad games are worth something between 60 dollars and nothing.
If you have a lackluster game that no one really has much enthusiasm for then going free to play is probably a good idea with some micropayments. If you have a great game that people are really going to be excited about playing specifically then you don't need to make any sort of accommodations.
The same is true for music, movies, books... 80 percent of everything is crap. Go to the bookstore... go to the new releases... 80 percent is garbage. Same thing at the theater and same thing for new games. Always been this way and probably always will be that way.
What we need are more flexible prices to take into consideration the varying quality of content. Bad games are not worth 60 dollars but they might be worth 10 dollars or 20 dollars... or 2 dollars in micro payments.
If you're a mediocre game company known for making mediocre games then you're going to have to adopt a business model that takes your poor quality into consideration. If you're a TRUE AAA game maker that people ACTUALLY like then you can basically set your own prices and people will pay.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
For reviews that are not paid for, see www.giantbomb.com
So how do I do so without landing on a Homeland Security watch list? :P
it can be months until somewhere like Australia can get it
Each country with its own mandatory, country-specific video game rating board needs additional delay to get the game rated, cut it down so that it isn't RC, and get the game rated again.
cheap Indie games
I thought Australia didn't even have Xbox Live Indie Games due to the cost of getting each game rated. Developers could sell games, but people couldn't buy them.
Since the package was open, I was SOL
The solution has been known for years.
By the time a $60 game hits $10, online play has dried up, with most players having moved onto the $60 sequel. The publisher might have even shut off the game's matchmaking servers permanently.
The case about inflation is something I've never heard raised before to account for the recent spate of $60. I assumed it was just greed on the part of developers, especially since it seems like it's only a handful of developers (namely Activision) who put out computer games priced the same as their console counterparts. Either way, I'm not paying that much for a game. Of course, I almost never buy games full-priced, but there were a few times when I just had to have something the day it came out. But for $60? At that cost, I'm definitely waiting for the inevitable price drop or sale. In other words, I'm probably never going to play SC2 (going on two years old and it's still $60 from Blizzard).