In today's economy, is $60 a game too much?

[Gamer From '78]

To the mods, please leave this thread in Sys Wars for just a bit, k? Thanks...:D

Alot has been mentioned in various media and among gamers about the cost of games these days. Gone are the days of new Playstation titles for $39.99 and $49.99 is the low end now, with $59.99 or more for "collector's editions" being the norm. But is it really unreasonable?

I remember when the Atari 2600 was around and software was $50 for pretty much pure crap. The NES titles retailed for $50 a piece back in 1985 and the SNES had games from $50 to as much as $70. I know, I paid $69.99 for both Illusion of Gaia and Super Street Fighter II Turbo (kinda freaky...I found an old box with receipts!). That was as far back as 17 years ago. N64 games sold for $60 generally.

Now, aside from the comparison to other games from days gone by, look at the cost of movies now. A standard DVD costs around $20 new for a 2-hour (on average) flick. A Blu-Ray or HD-DVD equivalent film runs $30 on average.

So I have to look at it from the perspective of "bang for the buck." Here I can buy a movie for $20-$30, watch it for two hours and be satisfied. So why is a game that lasts me anywhere from 6-60 hours (for instance Heavenly Sword at 6 hours to Blue Dragon at 60) and costs $60 unreasonable?

Just curious what everyone else out there thinks.

[Jaa Phaanom]

If you take into account inflation, then no $60 is not unreasonable. A $50 game in 1985 would be equivalent to about $95 now. A $50 game in 1996 would probably be somewhere around $65. Even though game development costs have gone up, the prices haven't really gone up that much (if at all).

I don't think I've paid $60 yet for a game this generation (unless you count Halo 3 Legendary edition, which I got from Amazon for $59.99). If you're willing to wait or look around for good deals, you can still usually pick up any game you want for no more than $50. I've also only paid an average of around $12.50 for around 60 Blu-rays / HD-DVDs that I have. And that's not counting the free ones from various rebate deals. There's really so many more options available now, that I think it's actually cheaper to buy games and movies than it used to be.

[PapaSmurf]

Like Jaa said, I just bought 7 Blu Ray movies for 80$ off Amazon. They had a buy one get one free, and I picked up Pirates of the Carribean: At Worlds End. That's basically 12.50 per movie. That's cheaper than a regular DVD. This format war and system war is great for us gamers. I picked up Madden for only 50$, and Warhawk gave me a free 50$ bluetooth headset, so I say the $$ are about right. With money and minimum wage going up I say the prices are about the same. I'm not feeling any dents in my wallet.

[Rogue Bounty Hunter]

If I get my money's worth, then $60 for a game isn't unreasonable. I enjoyed the hell out of Heavenly Sword, and even though it wasn't as long as a lot of people wanted, I didn't feel like I got shafted. Good sports games (March Madness, NCAA Football) usually get the most playtime with me, so they're usually worth it.

Not all games are worth $60, but if it's something I'm not going to get rid of, then I don't have a problem with it.

Now, the whole limited edition, collector's edition stuff for $70, now I have a problem with that. I haven't seen too many that were worth the extra $$

[DrunkenThumbmaster]

I'm with Cliffy B Games will never be the premiere form of entertainment when the prices are at $50/$60 and up. That's why so many games flop. If we can get the consoles down to $200 and games down to $20 then we could hit critical mass.

You guys wonder why the PS2 is still selling it's affordable. Most people on this board seem to have decent income. But everyone I know isn't like that I have family members so upset they can't find new GBA games because that's all they can afford.

I understand inflation and relative worth. But if you have a certain income then you have what you have and inflation be damn.

P.S. I paid $80 for Super Street fighter 2!

[silversparrow]

I'm with Cliffy B Games will never be the premiere form of entertainment when the prices are at $50/$60 and up. That's why so many games flop. If we can get the consoles down to $200 and games down to $20 then we could hit critical mass.

That's not really possible given the fact that the average production costs of a game are now $10+ million. That's means a $60 priced title, of which half the cost goes to the publisher and platform manufacturer (for royalties), would have to sell 333,333 to break even. When you factor in the marketing costs, which can be up to the tune of several $ million, you have to sell even more. I wouldn't be surprised if big budget games like GTA4 and MGS4 cost up to $40+ million to produce. Those have to sell millions in order for the developer to start seeing profit.

On the other hand, arcade games on PSN and Xbox Live are cheap because they don't cost much to produce. But even at that price, they're not outselling full-priced games sold in stores. Consumers want the full package, and for that they're going to have pay $50-60 a pop. The days of garage made games hitting it big are long gone.

Only after the sales of a title has saturated can the developer afford to drop it down to $20.

[DrunkenThumbmaster]

How much did spiderman 3 cost??? I paid $10 for my ticket to go see it. 300,000 per copy would be nothing if a game cost $20 bucks. The trick is to get more customers not more money from a limited amount of customers.

[silversparrow]

Like I said, you've got publishers and platform manufacturer's royalties. $10-15 dollars per game sold go to EA, Ubi, Activision or who ever publishes your game, then another $10 goes to the platform manufacturer whether it be Sony, MS or Nintendo. There's simply no way new games in stores are going to cost $20.

[DrunkenThumbmaster]

Yeah you are right. But personally I think this is a broken buisness model started by Nintendo back in 85(?) and the Buisness hasn't evolved since then???

[Cuddly Knife]

$10-15 dollars per game sold go to EA, Ubi, Activision or who ever publishes your game, then another $10 goes to the platform manufacturer whether it be Sony, MS or Nintendo. There's simply no way new games in stores are going to cost $20.
Why not? Sega did it last gen with its 2K series. If devs would develope, publish, and distribute their own games, then they could shave off a few bucks. Plus, they could stick in some ads for other games to help out. Granted, EA has been cramming ads down our throats ever since last gen and hasn't reduced any of their game charges, but EA is money first, quality and consistency after.

You want value for your money? Last gen, Sega gave us NFL2K5 for twenty dollars. It had online multi, offline multi, regular modes, Franchise, The Crib, gangs of mini-games, and more.

[DrunkenThumbmaster]

Damn skippy and it was the best selling sports game they ever had! And it was profitable.

[silversparrow]

I never knew NFL2K series dropped in price that low. Sports games are generally cheaper to produce than other types of games. They can just reuse the game engine from previous years and they don't need any script writers, CGI artists or orchestras. Sega also owned VC before they gave them up, so there were no publishing fees for that series. However, the fact that this move was never repeated tells me that it wasn't that profitable.

BTW, most devs are very small, ranging from a few dozen employees to little more than a hundred. They're don't have the resources to mass produce their game and market it. There was hope that online distribution services like Steam would change the business model, but unfortunately this hasn't been the case. Devs simply jacked up the price of their games to take home extra profit. For example, Orange Box costs no more in stores than it does on Steam. But why would you want to buy it via download and forfeit the possibility of reselling it when you can own a hard copy for the same price?

So unfortunately we're stuck with $50-60 games.

[Gadfly2317]

I think $39 for a PsP game is a little high, but other than that the prices are fine. I also think its very cool that Nintendo kept prices at $49, rather than $59. . . because regardless of how good or long a Wii game might be, those games cost less to make and you aren't getting HD and other next gen features.

[DrunkenThumbmaster]

The reason the $20 sports game wasn't repeated was that EA bought out the license and they put out the impression to license holders NFL and NBA that Sega was using there licenses to make low quality budget titles. There was a interview (I can't find it) that NFL was concerned about the impression that budget titles would reflect on the NFL.

Anyway I understand money needs to be made up. But I think at $20 prices you would make it in volume. IF madden could move 3 million at $60 how much more would they sell at $20?

People over look gems like Crimson Skies that flopped but if games were cheaper how many more people would have bought it. If games were cheaper wouldn't you be more inclined to buy titles that you may feel are a risk instead of renting??

[Rogue Bounty Hunter]

I think $39 for a PsP game is a little high, but other than that the prices are fine.

I agree. I've only picked up two PSP games for that price, and ended up getting rid of both. MGS: Portable Ops and SW: Renegade Assault. I'm more comfortable paying $20 for a handheld game, though God of War (PSP) could be the first that I feel like it's worth the price.

I always felt the gameplay of the 2K series was inferior to Madden, but the presentation was better.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

I think $60 should be reserved for the truly special games. If you have something that really took a chunk of green to produce, and its high quality, and you know you have a hit, then if u got the stones release it for $60! But I think all of these other crap games have no damn right or reason to be releasing at $60. But that's cool, I'll just rent them. Last generation I barely rented games, lately i've been renting exclusively. I use to like owning games, but at the end of a generation when you've got a stack of green boxes with coasters inside, you realize how much money you wasted.

In the past few months I've rented Time Shift, Conan, Uncharted, and now Kane & Lynch. I discovered one game was crap, Time Shift, another game was fun crap, Conan, another game was good but not worth buying, Uncharted, and another game is also good but not worth buying K&L. I'm also probably going to rent Assassin's Creed, instead of buying.

The next game i'll own in M.E., after that I have no clue. I'm saving purchases for the really mega-hit titles.

Actually though, I have made some XMAS related purchases that I don't count as personal, Naruto for my daughter and Scene-It for the family.

Anyway, no, no way in hell are 99% of these games worth $60. But I'm glad they are, because they spurred me into action, and now i'll probably never return to when I use to buy every game. And because the cheap bastaaads make games 10 hours or less, I can usually finish them before they are due back!

[Mochan]

Time Shift was indeed crap.

[thelastword]

For higher production value games, especially in the era of HD visuals and HD sound, $60.00 is fine. Personally, I think yearly sports games and movie licensed cash-in games should be marked at $40.00, twenty below more high quality efforts like Uncharted and Hsword for e.g.

The problem though, are the sorry loongamers who can't see when it doesn't make sense to purchase a game beyond $60.00. I'm talking Limited Editions, there is no way I'm buying a limited edition if only for dev diaries and useless toys, yes, (no matter how much I love the franchise). The most notorious example in recent times, was the rape me HALO3 LEGENDARY EDITION master chief helmet bsing pack. When a game is really popular, DEVS really go out of their way to carve out that extra money on desperate and lost souls, so what do we have, a legendary edtion which was $60.00 just weeks later because it wasn't moving as anticipated, and hell, we also had a HALO bile green console, which can't be given away at retail, but yes, it's good to see when gamers demand some respect with their expendable income and not buy cheap crapola and gimmicks.

There have been some really good LE game sku's though, I thought if you were into stranglehold (the game) and loved hardboiled that $70.00 wasn't too bad, even then, we have a game like uncharted where there is so much on that disk, everything from dev diaries, to concept art, to screenshots and interviews and so much more, all at $60.00. Heavenly Sword was quite similar with it's inclusion of the HSWORD anime etc.. on disk, no additional money incurred, and we all know the production values for these games, in terms of sound, graphics, animation and story telling, they are simply the best showcases out there atm.

So yes, there are some great value $60.00 games out there, and there are some LE's you may want to latch on, if the deal really suits you and is not carving. Personally I don't buy LE's, but this is where gamers must be a bit more informed.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

For higher production value games, especially in the era of HD visuals and HD sound, $60.00 is fine. Personally, I think yearly sports games and movie licensed cash-in games should be marked at $40.00, twenty below more high quality efforts like Uncharted and Hsword for e.g.

The problem though, are the sorry loongamers who can't see when it doesn't make sense to purchase a game beyond $60.00. I'm talking Limited Editions, there is no way I'm buying a limited edition if only for dev diaries and useless toys, yes, (no matter how much I love the franchise). The most notorious example in recent times, was the rape me HALO3 LEGENDARY EDITION master chief helmet bsing pack. When a game is really popular, DEVS really go out of their way to carve out that extra money on desperate and lost souls, so what do we have, a legendary edtion which was $60.00 just weeks later because it wasn't moving as anticipated, and hell, we also had a HALO bile green console, which can't be given away at retail, but yes, it's good to see when gamers demand some respect with their expendable income and not buy cheap crapola and gimmicks.

There have been some really good LE game sku's though, I thought if you were into stranglehold (the game) and loved hardboiled that $70.00 wasn't too bad, even then, we have a game like uncharted where there is so much on that disk, everything from dev diaries, to concept art, to screenshots and interviews and so much more, all at $60.00. Heavenly Sword was quite similar with it's inclusion of the HSWORD anime etc.. on disk, no additional money incurred, and we all know the production values for these games, in terms of sound, graphics, animation and story telling, they are simply the best showcases out there atm.

So yes, there are some great value $60.00 games out there, and there are some LE's you may want to latch on, if the deal really suits you and is not carving. Personally I don't buy LE's, but this is where gamers must be a bit more informed.

Completely agree with you about Limited Edition, not just Halo3, but any LE, I think they are all BS, but some people gotta have them.

I haven't played HS, I kinda doubt it is worth $60. I definitely don't think Uncharted is, I liked Uncharted and I think it was a great opening to the franchise, but they need to put some meat on the bone and flesh things out. The game was pretty slow action wise, there needed to be more variety both in action and in enemies. The game world was to inaccessible, as mobile and agile as Drake was, it makes no sense that you can't grab on and climb anything except the ONE thing the devs want you to grab. The enemies were boring bufoons, I was excited when the cursed appeared and I was hoping that was the beginning of more interesting enemies, but it wasn't. The vehicle sections need major help. The platforming was nice and there could have actually been a little more, despite the fact i'm usually ani-platforming, but that's how good the platforming was in this game. But no, not worth $60 in the end. The final scene and boss battle was totally anti-climatical and very weak.

You talk about being able to sneak-up and melee someone and do all of this stealth stuff, I never found a reason to do any of that. Just like I never found a reason to collect all the artifacts. In fact, looking for artifacts was a joke because u realize 'damn, I can't go there, crap I can't jump onto that, man that area is inaccessible' etc. Definitely a good game, but definitley one you can rent, not a lot of game here, not a lot of variety, weak enemies, and no replay value, no multiplayer. It is a game every PS3 owner should play, but maybe not buy.

[Rogue Bounty Hunter]

I won't even rent a game anymore this gen. Not only is there a risk of the thing not working in my systems (my first 360 wouldn't play a game with just one scratch), but I rarely get into a game until a few days of picking one up.

Also, a game like Drake has no need for multiplayer. Most games can do without it unless it is truly something unique.

[NEO-360]

If you take into account inflation, then no $60 is not unreasonable. A $50 game in 1985 would be equivalent to about $95 now. A $50 game in 1996 would probably be somewhere around $65. Even though game development costs have gone up, the prices haven't really gone up that much (if at all).

I don't think I've paid $60 yet for a game this generation (unless you count Halo 3 Legendary edition, which I got from Amazon for $59.99). If you're willing to wait or look around for good deals, you can still usually pick up any game you want for no more than $50. I've also only paid an average of around $12.50 for around 60 Blu-rays / HD-DVDs that I have. And that's not counting the free ones from various rebate deals. There's really so many more options available now, that I think it's actually cheaper to buy games and movies than it used to be.

Paying $60 bucks for a game IMO isnt unreasonable. I mean this is the next gen console war. We got away with paying $50 bucks a game for the last 4-5 years now. So paying an extra 10 isnt totally a wash.:cool: