Video game prices - $60/€60 justified or not?

[Leynos]

My post maybe slightly unrelated. I don't want to get into a rant about my hatred of DLC or digital games.

I just wanted to touch on 60$ price tag. This gen I hear people moan about that often. In fact I used to as well. I remember working at GS back in 2006 and EA & Bungie relased these steelbook editions of Madden and Halo 2. Both 60$ and both companies admitted it was a test to see if people would pay 60$ for a game for next gen. Now one can get angry over that except one thing. Games these days not counting DLC (that maybe the point of the topic and I'm really just having a thought) but games are a fucking bargain these days
[img width=624 height=744]http://i.imgur.com/mdx9S.jpg[/img]

[Izret101]

Awesome chart.

[NES_Rules]

Home computers were also thousands of dollars in 1992, that doesn't make a $2000 run of the mill PC today a bargain.

[bombatomba]

Considering the amount of money a developer spends making mid-to-top tier games in this day, I would say the price is justified.  If people want to play games with outstanding graphics on day one then they are going to have to pony up that $60.  The only way that this trend will ever be bucked is to start at the bottom.  Like many of you when I want a game that I don't feel is worth full retail, I just wait a while for the price to drop.  For example, I've had both Driver: San Francisco and Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine on my list since they came out.  Both were released September of last year, and I managed to snap both up last week for only $11.98 each.

Home computers were also thousands of dollars in 1992, that doesn't make a $2000 run of the mill PC today a bargain.

I think very few people point out that side of the whole "video games were cheaper in 19xx" argument.  Especially considering that most people posting in this thread (even if they were alive in 1992) weren't buying their own games anyways.


NES_Rules:  Ahhh! Only one more Karma point and you'll be 2^16!

[Cobra]

Video game consoles were cheaper though. My Master System II only cost $99 and even had a built-in game!

[Cryptid Collector]

You also have to realize that carts cost more to produce than DVDs. 

[Izret101]

Yes they were. Production costs supposedly get cheaper all the time. But gas was much cheaper so shipping costs have skyrocketed over the years to make up for the cart savings i am sure

[Zing]

I have three points I would like to discuss.

First, those charts which compare game prices from 20 years ago. They are rarely valid. In 1992, games were produced on cartridges which were significantly more expensive to produce. When you bought a Super NES game, literally $10 of the cost was due to Nintendo licensing and production fees. This is why first-party Nintendo games were always less expensive. A DVD or Bluray probably costs about a nickel to produce in China these days, and that includes the packaging and shipping costs to North America. The $10-15 in production costs saved by using discs has been replaced with large marketing and development costs in modern games.

Secondly, the idea that DLC is bad for the consumer. I agree that it is bad for a certain type of consumer: the collector. For pure consumers of game content, DLC is ideal. In fact, a perfect game would be served "a la carte", selling the base game for cheap (or free!) and only charging for the parts of the game the player desires. An episodic game could save quite a bit of money for players who never finish the game. Multiplayer mode being an optional DLC would save money for the solitaire gamer. Imagine offering the music as DLC, saving money for players who listen to their own music while playing. There could still be "complete" games offered, but certain genres would definitely lend themselves well to a pure DLC format.

Finally, online passes. When a company calculates the cost of "maintaining" a game, via customer support and multiplayer server capacity, it is difficult to estimate the indefinite cost. Used game sales mean a particular copy of a game could be actively played for a far longer time than with a single user. The publisher can't be expected to support the game indefinitely. One option is to shut down the multiplayer servers after a period of time. However, this harms consumers who wish to continue playing the game. An alternative is to charge a fixed fee per-user for support. This comes in the form of online passes. This benefits the consumer, since, theoretically, the fees collected from online passes keep the servers up for everyone. Given the choice of multiplayer being disabled, or having to pay a small fee, I suspect quite a few would be willing to pay to keep their favourite game online. Online passes give consumers the choice.