Are you kidding?
Are you telling me that a year ago when I was buying brand new games at $50 development of video games was completely different? That they diddn't have multi-million dollar development teams way back in good 'ol 2006?
It may be just an opinion, but I think it has merit: Game developers, publishers, and retailers have long been looking for a way to make more money on the games they sell, and finally found an excuse with the "Next-Gen" consoles to raise prices.
It is not costing them more to produce the game today than it did last year when they sold the games for $10 less.
Inflation is really being thrown around here like it's some kind of GOLDEN WORD that explains why prices go up the way they do, and that we should just accept price increses because there is this obvious national force called INFLATION that surrounds all things with monetary value.
In the world of media publishing inflation is just not a factor. Look at DVDs, CDs, CD-ROMs, BOOKS, etc...
When was the last time you saw the average price of any of those things jump by 20% OVERNIGHT? They haven't. In fact in a lot of cases those things are cheaper today than they were a couple of years ago. They have figured out how to produce content and publish it and turn a profit too!
None of the conditions that were mentioned in this article are new to the "NEXT-GEN" consoles. The percentages were the same on the PS2, XBOX, and GameCube.
So what's changed that is making these games cost 20% more?
I read someone's comment about inflation, but that did not take into account the fact that many of the costs associated with developing a video game have decreased significantly as well. And the market for publishers is more competitive than it ever has been in the past. Also, video games, like music, have never really followed closely to inflation trends.
I understand that some games have production costs in the $20million range, and I would probably not mind paying more for a game like that. But PLEASE don't try and convince me that every game (Sonic the Hedgehog for PS3/360 for example) costs that much to produce. Why not chage less for games that cost less to make? At least then the old "you get what you pay for" addage would be as true for video games as it is for everything else in the world.
I think though that the numbers speak for themselves. The Nintendo Wii is selling it's games at $50. Every month when the figures come out, the Nintendo Wii is the number one selling console (see past slashdot posts) even though they are still almost impossible to find in stores. And it owes that to more than just a fancy magic wand for a controller. For the price of a PS3 with NO GAMES you can buy a Wii and FIVE GAMES. I have both, guess which one I have bought more titles for?
And here's a question... When the PS2 games sold a million copies (or so) they would release the game as a platinum release for $19.99. Is the PS3 version going to cost $29.99 (a 33% increase)?
Slashdot Mirror
Are you kidding? Are you telling me that a year ago when I was buying brand new games at $50 development of video games was completely different? That they diddn't have multi-million dollar development teams way back in good 'ol 2006?
It may be just an opinion, but I think it has merit: Game developers, publishers, and retailers have long been looking for a way to make more money on the games they sell, and finally found an excuse with the "Next-Gen" consoles to raise prices.
It is not costing them more to produce the game today than it did last year when they sold the games for $10 less.
Inflation is really being thrown around here like it's some kind of GOLDEN WORD that explains why prices go up the way they do, and that we should just accept price increses because there is this obvious national force called INFLATION that surrounds all things with monetary value.
In the world of media publishing inflation is just not a factor. Look at DVDs, CDs, CD-ROMs, BOOKS, etc...
When was the last time you saw the average price of any of those things jump by 20% OVERNIGHT? They haven't. In fact in a lot of cases those things are cheaper today than they were a couple of years ago. They have figured out how to produce content and publish it and turn a profit too!
None of the conditions that were mentioned in this article are new to the "NEXT-GEN" consoles. The percentages were the same on the PS2, XBOX, and GameCube.
So what's changed that is making these games cost 20% more?
I read someone's comment about inflation, but that did not take into account the fact that many of the costs associated with developing a video game have decreased significantly as well. And the market for publishers is more competitive than it ever has been in the past. Also, video games, like music, have never really followed closely to inflation trends.
I understand that some games have production costs in the $20million range, and I would probably not mind paying more for a game like that. But PLEASE don't try and convince me that every game (Sonic the Hedgehog for PS3/360 for example) costs that much to produce. Why not chage less for games that cost less to make? At least then the old "you get what you pay for" addage would be as true for video games as it is for everything else in the world.
I think though that the numbers speak for themselves. The Nintendo Wii is selling it's games at $50. Every month when the figures come out, the Nintendo Wii is the number one selling console (see past slashdot posts) even though they are still almost impossible to find in stores. And it owes that to more than just a fancy magic wand for a controller. For the price of a PS3 with NO GAMES you can buy a Wii and FIVE GAMES. I have both, guess which one I have bought more titles for?
And here's a question... When the PS2 games sold a million copies (or so) they would release the game as a platinum release for $19.99. Is the PS3 version going to cost $29.99 (a 33% increase)?